Systems Theory in Anthropology [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): Miriam Rodin, Karen Michaelson, Gerald M. Britan, A.

De Ruijter, James Dow, Julio Csar Espnola, Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Beatrice Diamond Miller, Philip C. Miller, Emilio Moran, Xto. G. Okojie, M. Estellie Smith, John M. VanDeusen, Daniela Weinberg and Stanley A. West Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 747-762 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741987 . Accessed: 07/10/2012 09:44
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.

The 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

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Vol. 19, No. 4, December 1978

1978 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for AnthropologicalResearch 0011-3204/78/1904-0005$01.85

Systems Theoryin Anthropology'

by Miriam Rodin, Karen Michaelson, and Gerald M. Britan

INTRODUCTION Modernsystems theory began havinga significant impacton the social and behavioral sciencesmorethan two decades ago. Since then,an entire generation of scholarshas maturedin an intellectual atmosphere on systemic whichfocuses relationships in sociallife.An understanding of thepromise and problems of evolvingsystemsapproachesis now an important if implicit part ofeveryanthropologist's training. When the first Anthropology Today panel met in the early 1950s, modern systems theory barelyglimmered on thehorizon. In thefallof 1977,whena newWorldAnthropology Conference was convened, one ofsix panelswas devotedto the topic.2 This is a critical report oftheviewsexpressed by thepanel members and discussants whogathered at that timeto consider systems theory and anthropology. It does not review all ofthe relevant (and rapidly growing) but triesto identify literature, themajor fociof current anthropological systems theircommon research, and the crucialproblems themes, that remain to be solved. The World Anthropology-1977 Conferencewas realized throughthe efforts of co-organizers Sol Tax and Demitri It gathered Shimkin. an international assortment ofscholars to discussimportant issuesin anthropology's presentand future. Each contributor prepared a detailed outline for a module on a particular focusing anthropological issue. These prospectuses and the discussions that ensuedare expectedto provide thebasis fora largerconference and fora truly globaldisseminationof the findings and promise of anthropological research. The systems-theory panel was organizedby Fred Eggan (Chicago), Robert Miller (Wisconsin),and Demitri Shimkin
I This article reports the proceedingsof the panel on Systems Analysis in Anthropology of the World Anthropology-1977 Conference, held in Houston,Texas, November28-29, 1977. It represents a trulycommunaleffort. The threedesignatedauthors,whose names have simply been listed in reversealphabetical order,served primarilyas reporters, editing,collating, and commenting on the panel proceedings. Michaelsonpreparedan initialroughdraftof thearticle, which was then circulatedto all of the panelists for comment.On the basis of these comments,Britan and Rodin substantiallyredrafted the manuscriptand recirculatedit before making final revisions. Thus, while the authorshave triedto represent all participants' opinions,the finalresponsibility forwhat is said remains,of course,our own. We owe special thanksto DemitriShimkinforhis assistancein preparing comparative materialson Soviet and Marxist systemsthinkingand researchand for his criticalpresentationof mathematical techniques in systems modeling. 2 The otherfivepanels were (1) The Lessons of Human Evolution and Prehistory, chairedby C. Owen Lovejoy and GordonWilley; (2) The Bio-Social Interface,chaired by Estelle Fuchs and Solomon Katz; (3) Human Ecology-Models forHuman Survival,chairedby Thayer Scudderand JohnBennett; (4) SymbolicAnthropology and the Psycho-SocialInterface,chaired by Margaret Mead and F. K. Lehman;and (5) Public Policyand Anthropology, chairedby Dorothy Willner, David Mandelbaum,and Sam Stanley.

(Illinois-Urbana). Modules werealso preparedby Richard E. Blanton (Purdtue), Gerald M. Britan (Northwestern), Marian Lundy Dobbert (Minnesota),Howard Harrison (Wisconsin), JohnLowe (Illinois-Urbana), Karen L. Michaelson (SUNYBinghamton), BeatriceMiller (Wisconsin), and MiriamRodin (Illinois-Medical Center).These paperswerethestarting point fora four-hour discussion that also involved participants from the audience.3 This discussion, alongwiththepapers,provides the basis for our report.First, however,we must find our bearings by outlining the scope of systems theory as we see it. THE SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Systemstheoriesemergedfroma varietyof sources-cybernetics,engineering, industrial organization theory, epidemiology, and Gestalt psychology-and in Westernand Marxist socialcontexts. is a generic Systems analysis, then, term forthe applicationof formal, including mathematical, methodsto the task of describing and social phenomena. physical,biological, When modern came to the attention systems approachesfirst of social scientists in the late 1950s,many researchers viewed themas a panacea. Systems theory could transcend thelimitationsofsimple, functional cause-and-effect modelsand portray human adaptation in termsof well-specified webs of mutual ofanalysishad beensuccessfully This method causality. applied to the complex flows of energy within and biological organisms and therewas everyreasonto believeit could be communities, applied to the apparently morecomplexrealitiesof social life. whatthesocial seemedto offer Indeed,svstems theory precisely and behavioral sciences lacked-the toolsto modelmultivariate understandthathad previously interactions escaped intuitive ing. Our models mightbe more complicatedthan those of physicalscience,but they could still be firmly groundedin measured, empirical relationships. it soonbecameapparent theinitialflush ofenthusiasm, After was not a cure-all.Althoughresearchers that systemstheory and clearer developedmoreand moresophisticated technology social of systemsstructure and development, understandings in all its complexity. As given could neverbe simulated reality and by by Godel's theoremon axiomatic incompleteness even number (on maximumcomputability), Bremmerman's of theorieshad limitations. Scientists the most sophisticated and test still had to make choices, develop measurements, causal relationships. specific Systemstheory provideda tem3 Among these were Cyril Belshaw (BritishColumbia), Jonathan Institute),QladejQ Okediji (Lagos), Benthall (Royal Anthropological Theodore Schwartz (Universityof California,San Diego), Thayer Scudder (California Institute of Technology), and K. S. Singh Surveyof India). (Anthropological

Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978

plate forcomplex but it could neverrevealwhich interactions, and whichwere not. Static phenomenawere worthstudying pictures of randomlyselected empiricalrelationships often statements becamereified of their authors'ownbiases. In reactionto resultsthat were less than promised, many Westernsocial scientists, anthropologists amongthem,turned away from a systems approach.The newparadigm maintained influence, as systems however, concepts discussions permeated in thescientific literature. Some researchers continued to apply the systems approach,to refine it, and to learn what it could and could not do. It is these efforts that are finally yielding fruit. Modernsystems is neither a simplenora unified theory body of knowledge.Rather, it is a compendiumof approaches, and methods. theories, a general Whether and nontrivial theory is attainablestillremains in doubt (Sadovskiy1974). At base, systems is a general theory a way oflooking perspective, at the relationships amongvariablesthat has muchin commonwith traditional holism. aresetsofcovariant anthropological Systems no subset of whichis unrelatedto any othersubset. entities, Systems analysisfocuseson the meaningful interactions of the parts with one anotherand with the wholeas theyinfluence someprocessor outcome. No elemental part can be understood ofitself; onlyin terms we mustalso studyits interactions with the entiresystem, whichis shaped by both internal and environmental and conditions processes overtime.Systems "thinking" thustendsto be processual(timeand space), conditional, and probabilistic. In this sense, systemstheoryprovidesa broad framework for analyzingempiricalreality.It is a metalanguagewhich allows various disciplines and subdisciplines, both withinthe social sciencesand outsidethem,to communicate witha single terminology. It is a paradigm whichcomprehends relationships a unified through ofmutualcause and effect perspective within thestructural constraints ofsystemic The developinteraction. mentofsystems thinking has beengreatest in theUnitedStates, Western Europe (e.g., Germany [Klaus 1964,Radnitzky1974] and England [Clark 1968]), and the Soviet Union. American systemsthinking has been empirically oriented, conceptually diversified, and closelylinkedto technological and application problems; Sovietwork, in contrast, has beenlargely theoretical, withlittlesubstantive and has beenpresented research, mainly in journalsdevotedto mathematics and philosophy. One way in whichWestern systems fromthe differs theory primitive "functionalism" of anthropological holismis in its specification ofunits,aggregates, and relationships. It has been concerned withmeasurable entities-flows of energy, information, or materialbetween well-defined elements.The larger theoretical framework ofmodern systems approaches pointedly bares the assumptions, limitations, and definitional criteria of any specifictheorythat is being applied and provides an opportunity fortestingthis theoryagainst empiricalreality. A systems modeldemandsa conceptual clarity and a specification of conceptuallevel that enable relationships amongvariables to be understood along consistent relationaldimensions. By clearlydefining the conceptuallevel at whichdiscourseis taking place, systemstheoriesprovide a bridge among the levels examinedby relateddisciplines. Such a fitting together promisesa cross-fertilization of both specific analyticaltechniquesand moregeneraltheoretical abstractions. Klir (1972) has edited a compendium of leading Western viewpoints in systems theory. Particularly relevant to anthropologistsis Weinberg's(1972:137) discussion of the unreality of social-culturalboundaries under conditions of change. in partaddresses Weinberg Boguslaw's(1965) criticism ofmuch systems analysis by Western social scientists,which bases social modelson formal institutions without examining theless explicit but nevertheless important informal relationships which transcend formalorganizational boundaries.To some extent, 748

legislatedrequirements forimpact assessments have directed studies to reach beyondthe level of formalinstitutions (Lee and Hung 1976). Systems approaches have developed a unique brand of insight by examiningthe characteristics of "systems qua systems"(Geertz1973) and considering the effects of different kindsofsystem structure on system performance. Following the lead of earlier cyberneticists, social scientistsfirststudied closed,"well-structured" systems. Throughsuch analysis,the moreprimitive conceptof "functional equilibrium" was translated intoan understanding of thehomeostatic maintenance of specifiedsystemscharacteristics throughstructured interactions among related variables. However, a static view of system-maintaining (and seemingly purposively designed) negative feedbacks was quicklyabandonedin face of a discordant reality.Constant systemperformance turnedout to be the exception, not the rule. Positive feedback, thresholds, oscillation, nonlinearand discontinuous relationships, and growth werequickly intosystems incorporated analysis.More recently, researchers have begun tackling the complexitiesof open whosestructures are defined systems, only by the interaction ofpartsin theenvironment. This provides a basis formodeling the most complex human systems,not as they maintain but as theyreflect equilibrium, theadaptiveneedsofpurposive humanactors (Buckley1967). Equilibrium is not a given,but a plausiblespecial case whichmust be explained.Thus, contemporary systemsapproaches seek to encompass dynamic process. In this respect, Soviet theorists have perhapsmovedahead in identifying of theirWestern counterparts certainprinciples ofsystems and Yudin (1969:21analysis.Blauberg, Sadovskiy, 23) have proposed the concepts of (1) holism vis-a-visthe on the one hand, and component environment, on elements, the other; (2) systemcoherence through linkagesof different and type; (3) relativestability function and orderof elements and linkages(i.e., structure) overtime; (4) structure as having both horizontaland vertical dimensions;(5) hierarchically ordered and probabilistic systems characterized by determinate in the that is teleological control control;(6) in some systems, cybernetic sense; and (7) in some systemswith teleological so that synchronicand diachronic control, directionality, These principles analyses are requiredfora full description. innovation have beenappliedto analysesofscientific (Ignatyev and Yablonsky1976;Marshakova1977;Yablonsky1976,1977) and Gordon1976). and to experimental psychology (Zinchenko in In the West, Turner (1977) has taken a similardirection the meanalyzingmentalphenomena. Interestingly, through diumof information Soviet anthropologists theories, grounded in the primacyof economicdeterminism have been able to in their analyses include aspects of Western structuralism (Markarian1969,1972; Gretskiy 1974). frameSystemstheory, then,providesa generaltheoretical within a bounded set of work for analyzing relationships a typology of systems structuresvariables.It has generated closed, open, hierarchical, decomposable, purposive-and has analyzed the implicationsof these structuresfor systems of larger It has grounded its understanding performance. systems characteristics-stability, flexibility, directionality-in kindsof variablerelationships. an understanding of particular it has transIn conjunction withother, morespecific theories, into abstractmathelated particular slicesof empirical reality matical models that are multicausal but can still predict and be tested. outcomes Modern systems theorycan analyze the dynamics of a structurally static system,such as closed interactions in a stable environment, or the dynamics of an evolving structure, such as the transformations of revolutionary social change. Ratherthanignoring thecontradictions within humansystems, systems analysis can modelthecontradictions, conflicting needs,
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Rodin,Michaetson, and Britan:SYSTEMS THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY tensionswhichare the and internal stimuli, variableexternal paramountrealityof social life and the special concernof limitations, and on what issues meritfurther investigation. Marxistanthropologists. Five questions surfacedthroughout the session; this report is it is important to notethatsystems theory In thiscontext, edits the panelists'comments to presentthese themesin the or conservative not, as many of its criticsclaim, inherently following order: the static. Indeed, a systems approachattemptsto transcend 1. How doessystems theory relateto existing anthropological functionalism. of anthropological conservatism Systemstheory adds a means by which to understandnot only continuous theory? 2. What determines appropriate systemboundaries? Is sysbut discontinuous shifts as well.It neednot,as Haberprocess, best appliedin local empirical analysesor at more mas (1973) and Kuenzlen (1972) suggest,ignorestructural temstheory general levelsof theory building? analysis tensionsor reducesocial phenomenato input-output 3. Can we devise modelsthat comprehend individualvariproblems. and steering-mechanism abilityand cope withproblems ofmisplacedteleology? like Marxismand structuralism, has as its analysis, Systems 4. What qualitativeand quantitativemethodsare anthroof the underlying relationconcernthe examination primary pologists usingnow? in empirical phenomena-the shipswhichproduceregularities 5. How might systems approaches be applied in the future? whichthewholeand itspartsare related. logicthrough internal can be modeled, about how relationships It is a perspective outcomesthrough reference but it can onlyaccountforspecific SYSTEMS THEORY AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY technoenvironmental deterto other theory-maximization, or the like. Any particularsystem Eggan's openingremarkson the historyof anthropological learningtheory, minism, analysis involveschoices about what to observeand how to theory suggested that earlyfunctionalism and structural-funcand theseare onlyas goodas thetheory tionalism relationships, represent may wellhave metthe theoretical needsofan earlier applied.Thus, it shouldbe quitepossibleto use thelanguageof generation ofethnologists. Societieschanged slowly during their and generalizabil- colonialperiods,and early ethnographers systems-withits advantagesof specificity may have sampled but also Marxist ity-to analyze not only static structures, an artificially stable universe.Therefore the static modelsof and theirtransformation. of production Indeed, one relations functional theorists may have simply reflected the political to which bothMarxists theory couldwellarguethatitis systems climateat the time.The rapidchangeexperienced sinceWorld theories about and culturalidealistsmustturnif theirspecific War II may represent notmerely an adjustment to new condicause and effect are to be adequatelytested. tions,but also a catching up on naturalprocesses ofsocial and That a givenmethodhas been used badly or that one discultural adaptation.The former colonies'striking rateoftransdoes not of particularpractitioners agrees with the findings formation since WorldWar II, however, has sensitizedus to mean that it is useless. If Forrester's(1969) model of urban the dynamism and variability of all humansocieties:the old it is because of his stated assumptions static theoriesare foundto be conceptually decay is conservative, lacking. Recent of variablesand the structure about the natureof significant in anthropology theoretical innovations have triedto explain thelimitsof their Yet he was able to pinpoint interrelationship. of change. the mechanisms 1971). Similarly, models (Forrester common sense of intuitive Eggan notedthateventheold staticmodelscontaina primion one may be criticalof a Marxist"systemsmodel" focusing tive conceptof the systemic natureof societyand culture.At in the contem- least since Malinowski, the economicoriginsof ethnic consciousness we have orderedrelationships among itself component case is systemstheory poraryUnited States. In neither on countervailing related socialparts,focused forces, at fault. and searched models forheuristic socialand biological domains, Systems theoryis a method of explanationthroughthe include ofculture. More recent ofsystems methods applications but it is an approachwhich, ofmultiple relationships, modeling and logical modelsby Levi-Strauss, the use of mathematical like mostgeneralmodels,can be applied in a varietyof ways. cybernetics byBateson,population dynamics byVayda,Sahlins, the from have variedwidely, In anthropology, its applications Cancian, and others,physicsby White, political controlby process (Leaf 1972) to the open modeling of cognitive formal Easton, and decisionmodelsby Parsons. The basic question, spatial social organization, formal analysisof adaptive coping, a however, was the extentto whichsystemsapproachesoffer In interaction. (Plog 1975), and environmental relationships useful avenue for new theoreticaldevelopment.To what empirically extent,asked JonathanBenthall,is systemstheorya theory some fields, analysisand ecology, such as regional and widelyapplicable theories of systemsstructure at all? grounded and performance such have alreadybeen developed.In others, thatvon Bertalanffy's The panel reacheda consensus (1967) of behavioraladaptation,we have discovered coinage"generalsystemtheory"is slightly as the dynamics There misleading. many of the questionsand only some of the answers.Thus, the there are manywaysto examine is no single systems theory; thispaper has two foci:To the extentpossible,we will report dynamicrelationships of among parts and the implications on specific systems refined in the theoretically developments these relationships for the whole.However,a specific theory of particular mustsatisfy models that have enhancedour understanding and intellectual standardsof adequacy: scientific we will conhowever, phenomena.More generally, empirical data-either the qualitain empirical (a) It mustbe grounded of siderthebroader issuesthathave evolvedin the application or the quantitative tiveobservations ofa trainedethnographer ofthehuman ofcharacteristics analysisto themodeling systems or social surveys. data ofcensusstatistics (b) It musthave face animaland his social groupings. Thus,whileeach panel partici- validity;it mustbe appropriate or development to the research area, substantive in a particular his owninsights pantprovided problemat hand. (c) It must be powerful enoughto explain topics this reporthas been organizedaround the integrative but notso broadas to lose specias wellas therules, exceptions suggest. ficity. which thesecontributions, and thoseofthediscussants, and gener(d) It shouldmotivatedependent hypotheses ate new questions. One aspect of a usefulsystemstheoryis a link to social ISSUES IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY In thisvein, or methodological. either substantive applications, one which skillsvariedconsider- Michaelson Our specific interests and methodological theconcept ofa "critical offered theory," ably, but we shared a commonvocabularyand conceptual is directly "criticaltheorists" relatedto application.Although we also agreedon the relation- such as Thabermas orientation. More importantly, and Kuenzlenrejectgeneralsystemtheory and anthropology, on thetheory's out of hand, theircriticisms shipbetween systems theory apply only to particular systems

Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978

749

models.Thus, whentheyclaimthaturbansystems models lack humanvalues,theymerely underline the need forcareful educationin appropriate As Harrisonnoted, systems applications. social scientists, and planners mustcollaborate engineers, carefullyif we are to deal at all humanely withphenomenathat combine and social elements-whatHarriphysical, biological, son termed "people" and "semi-people" systems. The panelfinally agreedthatsystems theories couldfulfill the ofscientific requirements modeling. Moreover, participants felt that a systems perspective providesa promising way forsocial to understand anthropologists social and cultural change,rapid populationgrowth,migration, institutional elaboration,and the relationship between cognitiveand biological bases for humanthought. Amongthe advantagesthisperspective offers is the possibility of transcending the ethnographic description of simultaneous eventsin linearlanguage.Dobbertspecifically recommended the use of flowdiagramsas an aid in anthropologicalteaching and research. Systemstheorieshave already found wide application in manydisciplines of thephysical, biological, and social sciences, as well as in engineering and business.Yet, whiletraditionally anthropological problems have increasingly becomethe subject of interdisciplinary research(as Mead noted in her plenary address),anthropologists have themselves becomeincreasingly isolatedby subdisciplinary The unitary and divisions. concepts ofsystems terminology theory providea linguafrancathatcan enable social, biological, to and archaeological anthropologists converse acrossspecialtiesand worksmoothly withengineers, managers, planners, geneticists, computer scientists, and others. Many participants have alreadybeen able to workeasilyon common systems in fields problems withcolleagues farremoved fromtheirown. As we comparedour experiences in highway planning,agriculturalextension,education, mental health, marketing, and the like, it became increasingly apparentthat modelsare appropriate systems to a widevariety oftheoretical and practicalproblems. Shimkin, and Britanpointed Harrison, out,however, thattheselection ofwhich model,or exactlyhow to apply it, requires intellectual rigorand honesty and a very careful examination ofthelimitations ofthemodel'sunderlying theory. Merelyrelabeling acts and products as feedback, input, or output is not only atheoretical, but also terminologically sloppyand intellectually lazy. A further advantageofsystems analysisis its heuristic value in problem definition, whether or not othertheoretical perspectivesare finally applied.Givena researcher's assumptions about significant variablesand dynamics, a systems modelcan offer a rough test of his hypothesesand may reveal important influences that are not intuitively evidentand are difficult to in otherways. conceptualize This finaladvantage returned our discussionto anthropology's need fordynamictheories. Whileit is truethat systems perspectives are not the only approach to changeover time, mostforecasting modelshave incorporated at least rudimentary systems analysis. The primary difficulties in developing theories for social analysis are encountered in the early formulative stages,when termsare ill-defined and poorlyunderstood. All research is founded on irreducible assumptions, and the value of theorydepends not only on how well these assumptions emulatereality, but also on whether theyare clearly understood by thescholar and his technical audience.The systems theorist, like any otherresearcher, mustbe surehis definitions and proceduresare carefully and consistently wrought. While specific systems modelsmay sometimes provemistaken, theirassumptionsmustat least be clear and theirvaliditytestable.In the professional exchange ofpublication, inadequatemodelscan be winnowedout. As Cyril Belshaw indicated,the crafting of bettertheories is speededwhenmanyresearchers workwithin a common framework. 750

SYSTEMS THEORY AND LEVELS OF ANALYSTS

The problemof selecting an appropriate level foranalysis is notuniqueto a systems orientation. Level, as we used it, refers largely to thekindofsocial aggregate to be studied.Should we focuson a singlesettlement, a social network, or the political and economicrelationships withina city or betweencities? Alternatively, "level" was used to distinguish among social, cultural, behavioral, and biologicaldomains.The finding of an appropriate level ofanalysisis particularly important forthose ofus whoare working withsystems models, because thenotion ofinterconnection and mutualinfluence amongmanyvariables can lead us to overspecify complexelements or, conversely, to elaboratemodelsbeyondour data-gathering abilities. In any research, the firststep is delimiting the range of phenomena tobe measured orobserved. RobertMiller, Shimkin, Lowe, and Britan all mentioned that anthropologists tend to select theirlevels of analysisarbitrarily. Anthropologists concernedwith "culturalgroups" can definethem in termsof language,ethnicity, or subsistence pattern.Variousnotionsof "a city," a "social norm," a "transformational rule," or a native taxonomy are treatedas if theywere comparable, yet such conceptsoftenreflect the peculiar opinionsof each researcher. Dobbertnotedthatnativecategories can be employed only to produce culturally specificdescriptions of perceived interrelations (see Dobbert 1977). Ethnographic data mustbe and thiscreatesproblems classified, of definition; the choiceof an appropriate level of analysisis inescapablyrelatedto the natureof theproblem and theory motivating research. Harrison contributed the insightsof a workingengineer throughseveral examples of systems problem-solving and design.He argued that many alternative solutionsmay exist forany oneproblem, and theinvestigator mustchoosethemost useful option:"Thus theappropriate division ofsubjectmatter is heavilydependent on purpose."After identifying an appropriatedomain,"one willinvariably studya system largerthan thetarget." The conceptual ofidentifying problem theboundary betweena systemand its environment-defining internal and external variables-is largelya matterof judgment. As a rule ofthumb, Harrison suggested thatsystem be placed boundaries wheresystemoutput does not significantly influence system ifhoe agriculture input.For example, does notaffect thenatural environment's carrying capacity,the anthropologist can limit his investigation of a primitive economyto a consideration of domesticresourcemanagement. If, however,environmental characteristics are sensitive to human action, the system boundaries must be expandedto includethose aspects of the environment (such as water table or soil fertility) that are As Blantonindicated, affected. it was precisely such a consideration that motivated his use of regional analysisto studythe of local markets,since the development development of individual marketsvaried with trade among many settlements and settlement A dramaticapplication of thismethod clusters. of delimiting systemboundarieswas offered by Lowe in an analysisof the collapseof the Classic Maya. Britannotedthat in boundary errors about the interand uncertainty placement from actionsamongpartshave sometimes keptanthropologists developing adequate models. For example, while Barth's systemicapproach to social change is in some ways overly general, its combinationof environmental, behavioral,and and valuable culturalvariableshas stimulatedan impressive seriesof investigations. The discussion of in a moredetailedexamination culminated the particularsystemsmodelsthat participants have used in their own research.Rodin, for example,describedhow she and predator-prey applied ecological models of competition with to a studyofurbanneighborhood succession relationships to the dynamics of expansionand warfare comparisons among Africansegmentary societies (see Rodin 1977). Dobbert deCURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

scribed heruse ofconditional-probability matrices in analyzing decisionmakingby individualactors.Beatrice context-specific Milleroutlinedthe uses of dynamic theories in family systems therapy. Shimkin and Lowe described theapplication ofMarkov stochastic chainsand other modelsto urbansystems growth and decline.Britan discussedthe nature of boundariesin formal bureaucraciesconsideredas informalsocioculturalsystems. Theodore Schwartzdiscussedthe applicationsof cybernetics of cognitionand social process. His to the understanding situations in which social researchin Melanesia identified structure of alternative placed severelimitson the feasibility werethebasis forfurther His comments adaptations. discussion on futureapplications of systems models to problems of development. ofthisroundrobin, thepanelists At the conclusion generally agreed that the choice of a particularlevel of analysis-inbehavioral social patterns, dividualcognition, cultural process, on the specific interactions-wasdependent rules,or ecological notedthatanalysesof problem at hand. Beyondthis,Shimkin or longer timeperiodsmustnecessarily larger social entities be or local situationsmay be less specific.Small, well-defined, within ofhuman modeled thelimits fairly exactly predictability; the resulting theorycan be applied to similarsituationsbut may not be widelygeneralizable. Less precisemodelsof large such as nationaleconomies, systems, may be capable of predicting large-scale shifts but probablynot short-term or local Rodinsuggested fluctuations. thatthechoiceofan appropriate the researcher boundarydependson whether in is interested orspecific developing general theories. Sincemostethnographers and analyzeparticular describe local settings to enrichour inofhumanvariety, ofhighprecision ventory theories specific presentthemostwidelyacceptableuse ofsystems modelsin social anthropology today.Blantonand Lowe added thatlarger-scale modelsaimed at moregeneraltheories wouldbe of greater use forarchaeologists and prehistorians. Thayer Scudder and JonathanBenthall added a note of caution by pointingout that researchers oftenselect models uncritically, withoutcarefully examining theirunderlying asThe easy confusion sumptions. of competition and predation modelsand the loose borrowing of cybernetic terminology for culturalanalyses were cited as examples.Both Scudder and Benthallemphasizedthat the credibility of systemsanalyses dependedupon a carefulreconceptualization so that assumptionsand terminology developed in another substantive domain mightbe validly applied to social and culturalphenomena. Benthallwas especially criticalof statements mixing empirical data withvalue judgments, as in the phrase"systemic pathology." Blanton's and Harrison'suse of continuous vs. discontinuous change, collapse models, and models of structural noncoherence and Lowe's concernfor "forecasting the consequences" of a particular line of sociocultural development are instancesof the maintenance of a moreappropriate degreeof cultural relativity. INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY ANDMISPLACED TELEOLOGY IN SYSTEMS MODELS Early critics of systems analysisattackedthe assumption that humansystems are boundby mechanistic linksso thatan event must evoke a unique response. Such models, they argued, reducehumanbehaviorto determinate outputand ignorethe variability ofsocial behavior. Whilemostparticipants feltthat Harrison's designation ofhumansystems as "ill-defined" simply beggedthe question,we recognized the conceptualand operationaldifficulties ofmodeling situationally plastichumanaction. Shimkinproposed that we start by thinkingof behavioral processas "nonlinear, nonstationary, stochastic, and subjectto structural change." To apply "system" characteristics to inVol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978

Rodin,Michaelson, and Britan:SYSTEMS

THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY

dividualactorsis an ecologicalfallacy.Harrison,Michaelson, and Shimkin notedthat manyeconomic forecasts assumethat individualsexhibitonly rationaleconomicbehavior.Yet, as RobertMillernotedin the case of sacredcows in India, when this logic is not grounded in native understandings it cannot predict either large-scale eventsorindividual actions(see Miller 1971). Nonetheless, Rodin argued that such models have a heuristic value.Investigators can checktheir predictions against eventsto see how closelytheir assumptions reflect real cultural process.Shimkinnoted,forexample,that Levi-Strauss'sdistinction betweenstatistical and mechanical modelsis inconsistentwithcurrent understanding of cognition and behavior, in which memoryand anticipationplay a large role. Yet the computational capacityof the humanminddoes imposeconand mechanicalcategories straints, may be viewed as coding devices that reduce environmental complexity. Thus, even if the assumptions are invalid,mechanical modelscan be tested againstempirical indicators ofsocial and cultural change. While a stochasticsystemsmodel may accountforpresent states, it cannot completely predictthe future.Models may onlybe able to indicatethe consequences of unchanging structuralarrangements-and structures rarelyremainunchanged. Human groupings are not mechanistic and perfectly specifiable systems.As Michaelson and Britan noted, human systems displayrealcontradictions; all partsmaynotbe equallyrelated to all otherparts.Tensions,moreover, are continuously generated in the processof life,and, as ecologists have discovered, equilibrium is onlyone ofmanypossiblestates.Techniquesfor modelingchangedstructural arrangements need to be developed; Dobbert (1975) has suggested sequentialgeneration as a methodfor handlingthis problem.Yet social theoryis still imbuedwiththe subtleteleological assumptions of earlyfuncequilibriumis the goal of social process." Still, while the attribution ofpurposeto socialsystems is fallacious, the failure to attribute goals to individuals and corporate groupsis also in error. Social systems analysismustencompass the dynamics of uneven distributions of beliefs,abilities,knowledge, and resourcesamongpeople,as well as the genuinely differing goals amongindividuals and the corporate groupstheyform.
THE STATE OF THE ART

tionalism: "This practice exists in order to

. .

." or "Social

As we have emphasized,there are many different systems theoriesand methods;it is thus difficult to draw a unified conclusion about wherethe fieldnow stands.Indeed, systems theory appearsto be increasingly notonlyin anthropervasive pology,but throughout the social and behavioralsciences.To date,we have beensearching and experimenting withparticular in each anthropological methods systems from subfield, ranging to Bateson's use of cybernetics to understand schizophrenia ecological models of culturaladaptation and to the "new" The simpleinput-output modelsoftheearly1960s archaeology. have by and largebeen superseded ones. by morecomplex The greatesttechnicaladvances in systemsanalysis have occurrednot in anthropology, but in the natural sciences. Investigators therehave appliedfinite mathematics-probability theory,vector and matrixmodels,linear programming, game theory (Von Neumannand Morgenstern 1947),and path availThe increasing analysis-to open and adaptive systems. has made it easier to ability of small high-speed computers in a wide rangeof settings. apply these complexframeworks Theiruse in anthropology, has been limitedby their however, data. and commensurable enormous demandsforquantifiable Even more importantly, these quantitativetechniqueshave diverged widely from the methodological sophisticationof 751

to qualitativeanthropology. Thus, we are still onlybeginning mathematics fromphysicalapply the sophisticated emerging science models of discretevs. continuouschange,structural and topological transformation. What is needed noncoherence, thatgenerate testablehypotheses. forsuchanalysesare theories The panel suggestednew approachesin social anthropology that would be more consonantwith a quantitativesystems framework. Dobbert,Lowe, and Rodin, forexample,suggestedseveral on purelyformal ways to discriminate typesof social systems of kinshiprulesand grounds. Beyond qualitativecomparisons the idea of mathematical isomorterminology, theysuggested anthrophism,whichhas had some currency amongcognitive on social systems pologists. This wouldlet researchers compare and rangesof equilibrium of dynamics, dimensions stability, noted that biologicalsystemsoften solutions.Rodin further at all. Dobbert, without persist achieving anystableequilibrium a strategy individual which on theother hand,outlined through could be represented withqualitative criteria decision-making data by estimating ethnographic probabilitiesof particular The resulting matricescould be decisioncontexts. probability inductivelygrouped into classes for formal cross-cultural on regional Blanton's(1976) work analysis is another example. and archival data from Usingdiachronic archaeological sources, he and Kent Flannery and their associatesdocumented cyclical in Oaxaca in terms of urbandevelopment ofdistorted processes themerging thatreflected ofadministrahierarchies central-place The primate-city tive and market functions. patterndeveloped ofa region's but was followed to thelimits agricultural potential Blanton's work has by rapid collapse and decentralization. and methodological similarities many theoretical to that of the critical Lowe, whoused systems analysisto identify roleof the Maya elite in pushingthe lowland economyto collapse (Shimkin 1973). Harrisonbroachedthe issue of systemswhose components are of radicallydivergent orders,for example,man-machine and Lowe also mentioned systems.Beatrice Miller,Shimkin, the interplay of biologicaland sobiosocialsystems, involving in disease and epidemiccycles.Such models factors ciocultural of measures, a condition need a readyconvertibility whichis and may remainunmet.Reliable measuresof the relationship and cardiovascular between socialstress for pathology, example, have not yet been devised, preciselybecause the cultural in stressperception to quantify. is difficult component on the otherhand,have conHuman-ecological approaches, and symbolic sistently integrated physical,biological, aspects of life.As Shimkin is a human-behavioral noted,game theory rulefrom special case of Shelford's biologicalecologyand can be appliedto studies ofhumanbiocultural This does adaptation. notnecessarily solvetheproblem, however. More than50 years of ago, Park (1969) borrowed biologicalideas forhis theories urbanecologybut mystified the analysiswithunnamedforces and laws. Yet Rodin noted that biologicalecologyhas coped with the problemof imputedteleology, and the concept of adaptationhas been widelyemployedin urban ethnography. Shimkin and Harrison outlined thepromise foranthropology of theoriesof adaptive controlin automated systems.Such machinesystemsgrowmore complexthrough feedbackloops that have the capacityto modify Britan systemfunctioning. and MichaelsonnotedBuckley's(1967) discussion ofhowfeedback loops can resultin changesin systemsstructure. Rodin and Lowe further observedthat the conceptof control used so faron mechanistic systems has at least intuitive applicability to humansystems, though problems remain in operationalizing the conceptof control to accountforcultural and social stability.Issues like the roleof the Maya elitein economic management and the role of grass-roots political organizations in gaining fundsand services forthe innercityseemamenableto
752 comparisons.

such an analysis.Britanprovidedanother exampleforfurther inquiry bydistinguishing between formal and informal structure in centralized bureaucracies and outliningthe effect of this distinction on the diffusion of innovations. Techniquesforquantifying culturalbeliefs and values have not yet been perfected, and consequently qualitativemodels seemforthe moment to providebetterconceptualizations. Yet the combination of social, cultural,biological,and physical variables in qualitativeanalysis raises again the problemof comparable measurements (Shimkin, Hyland,and Rodin 1976). For example, when cognitive,demographic, and economic phenomena are combined in a singlequalitativemodel,howcan we determine therelative contributions ofthevariouselements? This problem can possibly be solvedthrough theuse ofweighting factors assignedthrough ethnographic observations of importanceand/orthrough summing repetitions (Dobbert 1975). Harrison suggestedthat, in any case, qualitative modeling an investigator permits to identify thoseaspects of social and cultural organization which are moreorless sensitive to external and to examine theinterrelationships pressures amongvariables. and testing Qualitative modeling oftheoretical assumptions can in detailedquantitative thenbe grounded analysesof selected subsetsof the system.
SYSTEMS APPLICATION IN THE FUTURE

In the finalpart of our discussion, severalmembers of the audiencetook the initiative. CyrilBelshaw relatedour examination of systems theory to currentdirectionsin economic that isolated investigators anthropology, observing can never as muchas a groupthatsharesideas and results. accomplish He suggested that a critical mass of anthropological systems theorists wouldstimulate further interdisciplinary collaboration. He notedthatsomepromising systems applications havealready beenundertaken by theInternational Social ScienceCouncilin the area of world modelingand that more participation by wouldbe desirable. He also pointedto theneed anthropologists foranthropologists to be presentin development agenciesand mentioned severalinterdisciplinary projectsalreadyunderway in Asia and Latin America.In Argentina, forexample, thereis a strong in systems interest and researchers there have analyses, developedrelatively sophisticated mathematical applications. in Africaand parQladejQ Okediji spoke of development and urbanization. ticularly of the need forstudying urbanism He notedthatin-country skillsarelesseasilyavailable technical in nonindustrialized nations and emphasizedthat we would have to communicatethe immediatepractical value of a beforeit would be accepted.One goal of systems perspective of is the discovery majorimportance to himand his colleagues social means for promoting political stabilityin rapidlyurabout the future reservations banizingsocieties.He expressed research:the focusshouldbe of pure theoretical acceptability on immediateapplicability.This suggestsa deemphasison forqualitative concern and an increased mathematical modeling approaches. thepointsmade by Okedijiand by K. S. Singhreemphasized He noted that Westernsocial sciencehas TheodoreSchwartz. that and suggested sometimes servedtheendsofrecolonization Marxistanalyses.To we makegreater to developuseful efforts focuson thetypes research thatend,he feltthatsystems might which are more and less amenable to of culturalgroupings change. He said that analysis of systemsdynamicsin East Asian and Indian societies would be of particularinterest, ofthesesocieties. and greatstability giventhe variety to the requestfornon withenthusiasm Harrisonresponded mathematicalformulations, arguing that systems concepts could be masteredquicklyand used as a basis forqualitative modelsofsocialprocess Specific applications wereproposed by
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Rodin,Michaelson,and Britan:SYSTEMS THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY studies said thatsocial-impact Michaelson severalparticipants. highways, dams, as (such projects of largepublicconstruction and immediately Comments feasible and housing)are technically railways, of systems the utility approachesin useful.Britanemphasized program by A. DE RUIJTER dynamicsand conducting analyzingorganizational of effects State University evaluations.RobertMiller focusedon the systemic of Departmentof CulturalAnthropology, on issuesoftaxation conflicts economic citing changes, proposed Utrecht,Transitorium II, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht,The in both developed and betweenlocal and national interests 20 v 78 Netherlands. applithe immediate nations.Dobbert mentioned developing very well a Rodin, Michaelson,and Britan's article reflects transmission characteristic modelsto thecultural systems cationofstochastic worldconferences, namely, of many large-scale situations. ofeducational and the structuring ofknowledge by the extensuperficiality. This characteristic is strengthened and theories sivenessof the topic: systems howgametheories described Rodinand Shimkin is "a compendium of aptheory of have been applied to the politicaldynamics of competition proaches, theories, and methods." The resultis thatthe article suggested containsmany uninformative In sum,thepanelists environments. urbanresidential An example vague generalities. be attacked thatmight problems oflocal development a number is the conclusion of the panel that "the choiceof a particular stepsto begin modelsand agreedon thenecessary withsystems behavioral process,solevel of analysis-individualcognition, on a widescale. suchapplications cial patterns,culturalrules, or ecological interactions-[is] The need is not forglobal systemsmodels,but ratherfor at hand."In brief, fiveissues on thespecific dependent problem based on local data. Many ofus thatare precisely perspectives thatthe discussion pass in review.One need not be astonished to set roleby helping can play a useful feltthatanthropologists of these issues is defective;manyquestionsremain. ofhealth, planning plans forin-country up local record-keeping In thisregard, I wonderwhythe panelistsreferso littleto Panelists and urbanservicesystems. development, agricultural emphasizesrelationLevi-Strauss.His structuralism strongly also held a generalbeliefthat quantitativesystemsanalyses a systemsapships betweenphenomena;it is preeminently in local studies.In such cases, reasonably proach.His "Social Structure" are best grounded to modern was a breakthrough timeperiod, and, for a significant data can be obtained complete relationships systemsthinking in its emphasison underlying can maintain and its searchforthe internal the ethnographer conceptualization, withcareful logic of a system.(In thisconby ofdata generated overthequalityand validity control direct text, it is piquant that his expositionwas presentedat the summaries. census,or record surveys, in 1952.) The seven original Anthropology Today conference can-to a large extent principles identified by Soviet theorists in the worksof Levi-Strauss. -also be discovered What refbecause of the brieferenceis made here to his worksuffers CONCLUSIONS says that Leviness of the discussion.For example,Shimkin models was plannedas an and statistical Conference betweenmechanical Strauss'sdistinction The WorldAnthropology-1977 Free from is inconsistent of cognition and bewithcurrent understanding forum to take stock of our discipline. international participantsconplay a large role. havior,in whichmemory and anticipation of narrowacademic discourse, the confines Anthropology Levi-Strauss's possibleinterworks, however, give riseto three sideredhow farwe have come since the original mechanical and statistical in 1952 and wherewe shouldnow be going. pretations of the distinction between Today conference between ideal and withthedifference panel, in keeping with this intent, models: (a) a connection The systems-analysis withthe presenceor absence in favorof a moregeneralassessment real behavior; (b) a connection research specific ignored and social thenatural of an explicitly thathas affected formulated of rules; and (c) a connecsystem revolution ofthesystems known tionwitha different formerly colleagues kindof-discipline-tied-approach(Leviintoa smallroom, Crowded sciences. abstractsand papersfounda group are (1) Whichinterpretato each otheronlythrough Strauss1958:303-53). My questions In of reference. frame a familiar has this tionis Shimkin's starting-point? (2) On whatgrounds oflike-minded people sharing issues and been chosen?and (3) Whyis thedistinction beinterpretation this setting,we were able to isolate continuing in anthro- tweenmechanical theory and statistical withcurmodelsinconsistent about theplace ofsystems common concerns of cognition and behavior?Perhaps these rentunderstanding pologicalresearch. but to me theyillustrate the aroundthe fivethemesthat questionswill seem out of order, has been organized This report of systems core problemI have in evaluatingthis article: Does it offer and discussed:the relationship we jointlyidentified theory,the problemof levels of theoriesto anthropological anything new,or does it onlyrepeatmoreor less acceptedgenthestate ofthe and conclusions? theplace ofvariablehumanbehavior, analysis, eral statements By identiinvestigation. avenuesforfuture art,and promising we hope thatwe have helpedto elucidatea thesethemes, fying by JAMES Dow issuesofboth By addressing in progress. framework theoretical Oakland UniDepartmentof Sociology and Anthropology, adequacy and practicalapplication,we have tried theoretical vi U.S.A. 23 Mich. 78 versity, Rochester, 48063, needs the to meetthe standardsof sciencewhileremembering I agreewholeheartedly withthe authors'positivepresentation of the humanbeingswho are our subjects.In so doing,we are of systems as capable of dealingwithsocial and cultural theory that Sol Tax has pioneered. the tradition pursuing and leadingto accuracyin change, productive of new theories, Now that we have isolated the generalissues of action and that "systemstheory"has an alien theory.It is unfortunate That task is we feelthat the major task still remains. theory, in anthropology. What is beingdiscussedhereis a the systems connotation to stimulatesubstantiveresearchincorporating thathas insight into social and typeof anthropological theory hope our is It and methodswe have described. perspectives have been part of ancultural dynamics. Systems perspectives of thepromise awareness willspreada growing thatthisreport is not fora long time.The problemforthe future thropology We expectthatpubliofsystems in anthropology. perspectives to bring intoanthropology, but to makeanthrosystems theory in each panelist's summarized cationof the substantive reports to whichsystems awareof theextent concepts already pologists approach fora moreunified willbuildthefoundation prospectus their to proveor disprove exist,to helpthemto find techniques the world.The World Anthropology- theories, by scholarsthroughout ahead as a science. and, thus,to move anthropology The nextphase of providedan initialforum. 1977 Conference and The struggleis really between atheoreticalhistoricism shouldnow begin. growth modernfunctionalism.

Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978

753

What seem to be neededat thispointare guidelines forthe creation of systems modelsthatallow researchers to workwith theory thathas understandable, predictable, and verifiable logical consequences. The logic and mathematics of systems analysis can be takenfrom other fields, but thegeneral and specific guidelinesfor model buildingin anthropology have to be developed in this field.Specific guidelines are beingworkedout in many subdisciplines, among them culturalecology,social structure, and anthropological economics.General guidelines are difficult to discussbut appearin suchworkas thatof Odum (1971) on energy, Bennett (1976) on culturalecology,and I have discussed White(1975) on culture. theproblem of integratingenergyand symbolicinformation in systemsmodels a generalguideline is thatthe com(Dow 1976). For example, plexityof real systemscan be reducedin models by taking natureof thetotalsystem. advantageof thehierarchical Shorttermequilibriacan be treatedas variablesin a higher-order from system.Thus we already should know that,proceeding to long-term we themodeling of short-term dynamics dynamics, of individual go fromconsideration decisionsto social norms to institutional to cultural-ecological organization adaptation to basic human ethology.The important general job is, as while retaining always, to findways of reducingcomplexity validityin the models.

menosgenerales, y otrosdesarrollos La teoriade los sistemas aunque parcialesestirespuestas, pero que dan evidentemente sobre como el metodo cientifico mulantesy constructivas, del hombre(vg. Auger1952, puede servir para el conocimiento aunque sea 1942). Contribuyen, Kaufmann1975-77,Vendryes a transa un sectordel conocimiento, de manerarestringuida y formar a un tiemponuestranocionactual del determinismo ese acercaminuestra nocionactual de la vida. proporcionando ento entrelas ciencias de la naturalezay las cienciasdel estiempo. de nuestro pirituque es una de las tareasmas urgentes a un que se va imponiendo de la investigacion Esta direccion numerocada vez mayorde estudiosos,sea cuales fuerensus convicciones filosoficas, pareceserla mas valida cientificamente sustantivas en de aportarcontribuciones y la ma'ssusceptible y, por ende,en el dominio el dominiode la cienciadel hombre social. de la antropologia

of phenomena one of the mostillustrative [Generally speaking, and domains the present moment in the specializeddisciplines the des methodes, of the scienceof man is the renversement qualimostcharacteristic feature of whichis the changefrom The recognition of a regularprocedures. tativeto quantitative model, of a mathematical data, the formulation ityin empirical to dethe demonstration of its reliability, and its application ends are a source of inscriptive, analytical,and predictive groupof foran increasingly prestigious terestand fascination social anthropologists. by JULIO CESAR ESPfNOLA materialOne cannotpostulatea return to the 19th-century 20 V 78 Salta 1549, Corrientes 3.400, Argentina. to whichQueteletattempted ist, biologicalmonismaccording En terminos uno de los fenomenos generales, mas ilustrativos to sketcha mathematical skeletonof the human being and en las disciplinas de la hora presente of y dominios especializados Comteessayedto transform the humanbrainintoa mirror de la ciencia del hombre, lo constituye des exel renversement the external order.We knowtoday thatthe mathematical m'thodes,cuyo rasgom's caracteristico is an auxiliaryfunction, es el paso del empleo phenomena pressionof sociocultural de los procedimientos cualitativosa un creciente to the kind of uso de los never a goal. Nor can one postulatea return procedimientos cuantitativos. thehumanbeLa comprension de una regulari- ontological thatcharacterized extraterritoriality de un modelo mateof the scientific dad de datos empiricos, la formulacion according method, ing beforethe emergence wereapplicable matico,la demostracion de su confiabilidad y la aplicaci6ndel and experimental to which procedures inductive conmismo con finesdescriptivos, analiticosy de prediccion, onlyto the physicalorder. una fuente de interes reflects in a singular stituye y de fascinacion para un grupode way recentchangesin Systemstheory creciente entrelos antropologos sociales. of thenaturalsciencesand thedevelopprestigio thegeneralconception tools applicableto the understanding Observeseque no cabe postularun retorno mentof new intellectual al monismo materialista convery biologicodel sigloXIX, conforme al cual Quetelet of man. It allows us to visualizea new epistemological la tareade delinear un esqueletomatemaitico classicalscientific emprendio (thus amdel ser thought sion thatwouldreconcile humanoy Comte se propusotransformar el cerebrohumano plified)withthe thought of the humansciences,in searchof en un espejo del ordenexterior. it seems uniquelymeanHoy sabemosque la expresion theirown image. In this connection, de los fenomenos socioculturales es una funcion ingful matem'atica forthe future thateminent and physicists and important auxiliar,pero nunca una meta. Tampoco se debe suponerel biologistshave been observingwith great clarityin recent retorno a esa suertede extraterritorialidad ontologica que catimesthat theirdisciplines are also sciencesof man and not racterizo al ser humanoantes de la apariciondel metodocienonlynaturalsciences.As Gusdorf(1957:121, my translation) el cual el uso de procedimientos annexedto thenatuuntilrecently tifico, segu'n inductivos y exsays,"The humansciences, es solo aplicableal ordenfisico. to geteven.In mathematics, physics, are beginning perimentales ral sciences, has underlined the La teoriade los sistemasrefleja crisisin basic principles de manerasingular los camthe contemporary of man; they bios sufridosrecientemente en la concepciongeneral de las are a mirror fact that the positive disciplines in time." cienciasde la naturaleza of consciousness de nuevosinstrumentos highlight y el desarrollo man's acquisition intelectuales del hombre, aplicables al conocimiento que perobviSystemstheoryand otherless generaldevelopments mite avisorar una nueva conversionepistemologica que realthough and constructive ously provideanswers,stimulating concilie el pensamiento cientifico clasico (ampliado por este methodcan serve the underpartial,as to how the scientific of man (e.g., Auger 1952, Kaufman 1975-77, Vende las cienciashumanas,que instanding camino) con el pensamiento in a manner restricted Al respecto, although dryes1942). They contribute, dagan su propiaimagen. parecesingularmente sigboth of our to the transformation to one area of knowledge, nificativo y de granalcancepara el futuro fisicos que eminentes and of our presentnotionof presentnotionof determinism y biologoshayan venido observandocon gran claridaddesdc betweenthe natural about that rapprochement life,bringing hace algu'ntiempoque tales disciplinasson tambienciencias whichis one of the most sciencesand the sciencesof the spirit del hombrey no solo ciencias de la naturaleza.Como dice whichis pressingtasks of our time. This researchdirection, Gusdorf(1957:121), ((Las cienciashumanas, hasta hace poco of scholars, number to prevailamongan everincreasing coming tienden a tomarsesu agregadasa las cienciasde la naturaleza, of theirphilosophical desquite.En matematica, outlooks,seems the most fisica,la crisiscontemporannea de los irrespective scientifically valid and the mostlikelyto providesubstantive fundamentos ha destacadoel hechode que las disciplinas positiin the domainof the scienceof man and, therevas son un espejo del hombre;jalonan una tomade conciencia contributions fore,in the domainof social anthropology.] del hombre en el tiempo )). 754
CIJURRENT ANTH1ROPOLOGY

to an "educationalsystem," i.e., to educate,or to a "political was paid to Soviet, German, and other While some attention system,"i.e., to control. The goals of the people involvedas to refine Western nonewas paid to attempts systems theories, components in any such systems will vary,however, according Easternscholarship devotedto theseproblems. to multiple factors, including (1) wherein the system individA systems theory might welldevelopwhichcan be appliedto and are perceived by others;(2) with the solutionof specifichuman and environmental problems. uals perceivethemselves theyrecognize similar interests, which However,as the authors note,thishas yet to be accomplished. whichothercomponents Perhapsit is because theories about and waysof usingsystems may-or may not-conformto those the system"assigns"to them; and (3) whataccess theyhave to meansforinfluencing analysis have not yet incorporated non-Western conceptsof the system's purposeand/orupsetting its equilibrium. Disconhumanand environmental relationships. Maruyama(e.g., 1961, formities betweenthe purpose of the social systemand the 1975, 1978a) has attempted to do this,explaining that it is (Miller 1975) are theverystuff very difficult to communicate with claritycross-epistemologi- goals of its humancomponents of both gradual and revolutionary transformations of social cally and even more difficult to achieve an integrated model systems. or theory of a givensystem(or subsystem) applicableto and In termsof application, recognition of such disconformities the understandable by people fromdiverse cultures.I offer calls not simplyforacknowledging the need for "perspectives following as an exampleof thesedifficulties: based on local data," but for reemphasizing Tewa conceptsof relationships in the environment are typi- thatare precisely the individuals who are the targets or "clients"of variousforcally nonlinear (Ortiz 1969), yet their modelof theworldas a mal systems(Miller 1977). Focussingon the individuals-and system is so explicit thateveryday life can be explained in reon the formaland informal systemsof whichtheyare comlational termsas part of the systemicorder by most Tewa withsome voice in decisionmaking(Miller adults. Intrusionsinto the system (which systemstheorists ponent-mombers, corrective to the customary might view as causingdeviations, thenas deviation-amplifying 1974)-can providea "bottom-up" approaches which workdownfrom someformal system through mechanisms), whether by humansor nonhumans, may cause its so-called subsystems. Neglect of this corrective is partly in certain but theywill temporary changes everyday behaviors, responsiblefor the most dismal failuresof well-intentioned not changethe natureof the overall relationships in the long Habermas(1973) and Kuenzlen(1972) had run; i.e., the culture will not be destroyed by theseintrusions. "servicesystems." of urbansystems modelswhich lacked"upward" Hispanosand Angloswho sharethe same physical environment valid criticism and "horizontal"flowsthat originated fromindividualsand withRio GrandeTewa Puebloans seldom share this view of groups of individualswith similarand conflicting goals and lifeand the world, and theyalso seldomsharea common view of thesewithone another. used in develop- values. Systems approaches One of the advantagesof generalsystems theory is thatthe mentprojectsin thisarea moreoftenthannot failto take into analyst definesthe systemand its level on the basis of the account the various "harmonious" relationships perceivedby problem(s) to be studied. A cell biologist viewsa singlecell as the people concerned. whilean astronomer so examines our "solar system." Whenmultiple influence theories a system, epistemologies truly systems purposes, bothdefine theirsystems. and methods foranalysis, thenperhapsthemodelsand theories For theirwidelydisparate thesystems' in commucontext, theyhave no difficulty will prove usefulforproblemsolvingin multiethnic environ- Within characteristics. For the cell biologist's ments. Untilthen, as theauthors note,thepotential of "systems nicatingtheirsystemic level may be inappropriate, but the in anthropology" perspectives remainsan unfulfilled promise. purpose,the solar-system same approachis valid. Thus, although Rodin et al. statethat "to apply'system'characteristics to individual actorsis an ecoby BEATRICE DIAMOND MILLER logicalfallacy," to apply"system"characteristics to individuals 1227 Sweetbriar Rd., Madison,Wis. 53705, U.S.A. 31 v 78 can be a physical, healthnecessity. The nature social,or mental As a member of the Systems Analysispanel,I well appreciate of the problemthe analystis examining may well requireconthe difficulty of the task assignedto Rodin, Michaelson,and individuals sidering as systems, or as component-members of Britan.Theirarticlepresents an excellent overview of ourvery moreinclusivesystems, or as targetcomponents of stillother wide-ranging discussions and opinions. Therefore whatfollows typesof systems be(Miller 1972). The intimate relationships is not a critique, but an expansion of some of the pointsthey tween problem,level, and system for analysis still remain have touchedupon. largelyunexplored. No list of anthropologists who have applied systems theory to the description and analysisof variousaspectsof anthropoby PHILIP C. MILLER logicalconcern is complete without Count (1973), forhis sysDepartment of Urbanand RegionalPlanning, University of tems analysis of human biobehavioralevolution,or Wallace Toronto, Toronto, Ont.,Canada. 16 vi 78 (1961). Wallace's attention to the "mazeway"and to "equivalent behaviors"broke the mold of the "replication-of-unifor- This articlewill, I hope, stimulate to inquire anthropologists mity"approachthathas so bedeviledthe fieldof cultureand more deeplyinto systems analysis.While the authorsare reWallace stressed nonmathematical personality. the concept of individual process- stricted by their exposition, manysubstantial ings,perceptions, and cognition rather thanthe automatic and on two of these: to. I shall comment areas are referred inherently static transmission of a society's "culture" (and the systems 1. As a methodology, approachcan be usefulin to its members. His contributions can be seen coordinating "personality") interdisciplinary research. Disciplinary paradigms Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978 755

Department ofAnthropology, University ofWashington, Seas running attle, Wash. 98195,U.S.A.26vi 78 counter to the conservative approachesof systems and haveprovided an interesting analystswho have been so caughtup with homeostasis Rodin,Michaelson, and Britan beforethem and valuable on systems in anthropology. "closed systems"that,like many functionalists perspective theory of thepapers Their of thefour-hour discussion summary pre- theyview "the system"and overlookwhat I have called the systems"(1974). Conference paredfortheWorld indicates system's"component Anthropology-1977 Anthropologists have been burnedso badly by the fear of to reach effort of theparticipants a consensus theearnest conteleology that we tend to deny automatically any imputation identified and discussed." cerning thefivethemes A "jointly is thevaria- of purpose or design to any social system.Yet, if we look sixth theme thatmight wellhavebeendiscussed or cultural uses of systems tionsin epistemological theory. closelywe can, in fact,discoverthatthereis an overtpurpose

by SUE-ELLEN

JACOBS

JRodin, and Britan:SYSTEMS Michaelson,

THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY

oftenrestrict the opportunities fordialogue.Throughsystems analysisit may be possible to uncovera commongroundof sharedinterests. The researchof specialistscan thenproceed withinthe framework of a comprehensive researchprogram. The coordinating function of systemsanalysisis particularly usefulin dealingwithenvironmental and natural-resource issues. The limitsto thisstructured eclecticism stemfrom a lack of unitary organization or purposeful designin the object of study. 2. Mathematical systems theory mayaid thedevelopment of quantitative and ecologicalanthropology. Mathematical models of dynamic processesoffer a succinct presentation of concepts wheredescription is too voluminous and diffuse and theory is as yetincipient and unwieldy. The pricethatis paid is theloss of the richness of ordinary language. Models are oftenusefultools for developing analyticalapproachesto broad-ranged problems. Models in theory also play an important roleby phrasing alternative explanations and suggesting avenuesforempirical tests.In modelling, severalallied fieldsmay be drawnupon. The data requirements suggest the use of quasi-experimental designsin fieldresearchand multivariate statistics.Computersimulation is a very useful approach for understanding multiequation systems.Analytical fieldssuch as optimal-control theory and theories of stability and discontinuous change maystimulate newideas forresearch. Systems analysisshouldbe of particular interest to ecological An integrated anthropologists. socio-ecological approachis in demandforimpactassessment of large-scale publicworksand the studyof primary resource-based These fields communities. would benefitfromthe integrated studyof the culturaland ecological contextof humanpopulations. by EMILIOMORAN Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington,Ind. 47401, U.S.A. 24 vi 78 The authorsmustbe congratulated for summarizing the disparate ideas of a symposium that appears to have involved numerous participants. It is perhapstheirconscientious effort to represent all theideas raisedat the conference thatpresents problems fora clear understanding of the contribution of systemstheory to anthropology. Whiletheytouchuponpractically everypossibleidea thatis relevant to systems in anthropology, theygloss over mostof them.I wouldlike to pick up on two ideas that I was particularly to see glossed: the disappointed inherent differences betweenfunctionalist and conflict models of social systems and therelative value of quantitative vis-a-vis qualitativemodeling. The authorscorrectly pointout thatcontemporary functionalist theory has gottenaway fromthe static equilibrium-orientedmodels of yesteryear. They do not point out, however, that even today the functionalist approachdominant in most systems theory emphasizes the role of consensus in the maintenanceof system stability. Such a view came to us via Comte and Durkheim and has permeated Britishand American intellectuallife. A consensus-oriented approachto system stability and evolution tendsto overlookthe inherent in contradictions and nature.It is probably society forthisreasonthatForrester (1969) has describedcomplexsystemsas "counterintuitive" (i.e., inadequately perceivedby the humanmindand leading to counterproductive actions). When one worksunderthe assumption that consensusis the chiefmeans to stability, one simplifies the behaviorof systemsbeyondrecognition and is unable to explainthe evolutionof social structures. One need not go veryfarin thehistorical recordto pointout thatsocial systemscan remain maladjusted for long periods and even totallydisintegrate in the end. The cases of social changein therecord have notalwaysresulted from consensus but,rather, fromconflict betweensocietalsegments vyingfor powerand fromthe sometimes violenttakeoverof one such group.It is 756

surely inadequateto say thatif a groupis in powerit expresses the consensus of thepopulace.Yet thatis precisely theposition in whichconsensus-functionalism puts its defenders. Conflict theory needsto be blendedwithfunctionalist theory if systems theory is to live up to the expectations of the authorsand the rest of the intellectual community. By conflict theory I meannot a naive Marxismbut,rather, the awareness of and accounting for the differentially sharedvalues and aspirations in society thatgenerate a constant tug-of-war between its segments. Out of thisinherent conflict arisenewsolutions or adjustments to changing circumstances (i.e., internal change). Even responseto externalchangeis facilitated as the various segmentspropose alternativeways of coping with external stress.It is because of this variability that systems may perhaps be muchless counterintuitive than functionalists might think.Conflict theory also accountsforthe fact thatsocieties may evolve in the direction of instability. In the tug-of-war overpowerin society thereis no guarantee thatthosewho gain it will have the interests of societyat large in mindand that theiracts will not be destructive of the social fabric. The conflict modelpermits one to deal withthatpossibility in the behaviorof systems. The otherdisturbing gloss in the articleis a passingremark about a forthcoming trend marked by a "deemphasis on mathematicalmodeling and an increasedconcernforqualitativeapproaches."If anything, all thatwe have had in the social sciences are qualitative models. Even in the more biological branches of anthropology, practitioners of quantitative modelingand simulation have been fewindeed.If systems approaches are to live up to their potential, whatis neededare someserious efforts to put numbers to all thoseboxes-and-arrows of qualitative models. The difficulty has been that systems-oriented have takenholismtoo literally anthropologists and have tried to model systems too large to be practicably handledby any exactmeans.The result is thattheyhave had to settleformore qualitative, and oftenimpressionistic, remarks about the behavior of systems.The authorscorrectly point out that the and accurateapplications of systems onlypracticable analysis willbe in micro-situations, boundedby exact criteria, carefully with awarenessof the theoretical behindsuch a assumptions choice and the limitations of the results for understanding large-scale systems. One difficulty withanthropological in systemsparticipation orientedresearchthat cuts across disciplinesis a tendency towardcomplacency on our part. We tend to make an issue of the fact that our disciplinehas been since its inception holistic and,so theargument goes,essentially systems-oriented. it has seldombeen Whilethishas been a goal of anthropology, The Boasian reactionto environmental deteraccomplished. minism of scholarsthatgave us minute produceda generation of societies,but not of the environments which descriptions formedthe contextof their behavior. Specializationwithin sincethattimehas increasingly anthropology producedsophisno less ticatedstudiesof partsof total systems. Anthropology, needsto approachthestudyof systems thantheothersciences, to a task whichis far more and a commitment withhumility thanour specializedtasksand of which of our expertise taxing the returns are, at best,uncertain.
by XTO. G. OKOJIE

Zuma MemorialHospital, Irrua, Bendel State, Nigeria. 20 vi 78 The identification and discussionof thesefivethemesby the systems-analysis panel is scholarly and stimulating, but highly theoretical. I mustagreewithBelshawthatas in otheranthropologicalsubfields, isolatedinvestigators can neveraccomplish as muchas a groupthatsharesideas and results. Furthermore, qualitativeanthropology is getting complex, but need we for merelyacademic reasonsfurther complicate a subject that is
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

by JOHN M. VANDEUSEN PhiladelphiaChild GuidanceClinic,34thSt. and Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, Pa. 19104, U.S.A. 20 vi 78 While thisis a stimulating and welcomepaper,it is less than satisfying. Rangingacross a numberof important issues, the discussionseems to avoid closureon any. Perhapsthis is unavoidablein a cursory treatment of so largea subjectarea. My primary responseis to urge carefuland thorough exploration of the interface betweensystemsconceptsand anthropology. Systems theories and methods a "newkey" to nomomay offer thetic enterprise and perhapsprovideus a meansof integrating the many disciplineswithinanthropology. Effective developmentand use of thiskeyis no smallproblem. It is less thanlikelythatpublication of reports such as the presentone will, of itself,"build the foundations fora more unified approachby scholarsaroundthe world."I wouldrecall to minda fewof the moreunfortunate resultsof the diffusion of "neutral"technologies amongdeveloping nationsand make a plea fora moretempered optimism here. My beliefis thatthe nextphase in the marriage of systems withanthropology theory shouldbe characterized notby direct growth and rapiddissemination of information, but by a return to simplerconstructs. Core conceptsand techniquesrequire standardization, correlation, and evaluationfollowedby gradual synthesisof a theoreticalnetwork.Models are being adapted fromotherbiologicaland naturalscienceswithlittle of theirlargerimplications for our field.A rare consideration by M. ESTELLIE SMITH existsforunification of anthropological opportunity disciplines N.Y. 13115, U.S.A. 22 v 78 Minetto, the critical of themeaning through assessment and applications The authors,as well as a numberof the participants It shouldbe pursuedbeforetheproliferaof systems concepts. (e.g., Okediji, Belshaw, and Singh) in the symposium, tionof methods has outpacedour abilityto conand measures stress the utility of systems modelsin the analysisof systems a guiding rationalefortheiruse. dynamics, struct sincetheseare "the special concern particularly It is obviousfrom thisreport thatanthropology as a science of Marxistanis now struggling thropologists" and since such analyses would focus on "the withquestions of just where and howsystems immediate practicalvalue of a systemsperspective." and modelsfitin. The present concepts One aldangerlies in theeager mostsensesa collective cryof "mea culpa" as Harrison("with and disjointednatureof this pursuit.There is an enormous enthusiasm"), Michaelson,R. Miller,and othersassure their languageproblem.Terminologies are inconsistent, and usages more pragmatic rangefrom colleaguesthat thereare, indeed,applied asthe formal to the metaphorical. The term"system" pects in theworkof systems itself has been used witha multiplicity scholars. of definition which must Despite this,one is also struckby the fact-though some approachthe recordnow held by "culture."The potential for maythink thistrivial-thatwhereas SovietMarxists is hintedat in the presentpaper by the irritating are lauded confusion as "ahead of theirWesterncounterparts of reference in identifying between"systemstheory"and "systems shifting . . . principles of systemsanalysis" (italics mine), Marxistselseapproach."A readernew to the fieldcould not possiblycome whereseem essentially concerned withlocal applications witha much clearerunderstanding away fromthis discussion and formulations empirical of a programmatic of what exactlyis usefulabout systems or whereto type-e.g., Okediji's thinking emphasison promoting cited in the politicalstability and Singh'scall for beginto get a handle on it (since the references understanding the dynamics of societies, such as India, which paper are rather advanced). display"greatstability." Giventhe rather abstract, theoretical Whilethereis a need forcautious, disinterested studyof the emphasisin the earlierdiscussions, one mightwonderat the relativemerits of varioussystems approaches and standardizaratherunbecoming haste displayedas variousparticipants tion of key definitions, apa moreimportant task is the articulaparently to suggest scurry tion of infrastructure in generalsystemstheory.Benthallis sociallyrelevant applications suchas social-impact studiesof dams and issues of taxationconflicts. right to query,"Is systems theory a theory at all?" It is more My pointis that,if Okediji,Singh, and Belshawhave legiti- an epistemology than eithera science or a methodology (cf. matelychided the panel members(and I hope I have inter- von Bertalanffy the 1967,Bateson 1972). We need to ascertain pretedthe tone of theirremarks correctly), thenone wonders scope and applicability of thisbody of theory to our field, and why Soviet Marxists-who surelyshould be expectedto be an assessment thisrequires of generalsystems as a distheory modelswithin utilizing a Marxistmode par excellence-stress ciplinein its own right.Collaboration withthe variousguilds researchon the theoretical questionsand problems which,for of systems and scientists theorists the same who are examining them,still appear to exist in systemsmodels,neglecting the issues could prove most helpfulfor all parties. application of the modelsto real systems. Perhaps,despitethe Severalmajorassetsof systems alludedto obliquely thinking, enthusiasm and optimism expressed in the closingsession,it is by Rodin, Michaelson,and Britan but meriting much more because thereis still much fundamental developmental work consideration, are the following: thatmustbe done beforesystems analysiscan genuinely fulfill 1. The systemsapproach accommodateschange,paradox, Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978 757

the whole science of man? We are all agreed,firstly, that in this science quantifiable and commensurate data are hard to come by and, secondly, that since human systems displayso theirstudymust of necessity many contradictions be multibut is thisany excuse forturning disciplinary; humangroups into mechanistic and perfectly specifiable systems?How, for would even relatively mathematical instance, sophisticated aplet alone stueasier forteachers, makeanthropology plications dents?I am in fullagreement withOkedijiin his reservations of puretheoretical about the future research. acceptability For withmyriads countries of huus herein developing grappling manproblems, the focusshouldbe on functional anthropology. On the otherhand,I agreewithMiller,Shimkin, and Lowe thatit is not without reasonthathuman-ecological approaches have consistently integrated physical, and symbolic biological, aspectsof life. Examplesof biosocialsystems an ininvolving of biological terplay and sociocultural in diseaseabound factors in medicine.My work amongstthe simple rural people of Ishan, Bendel State, Nigeria,gives some measureof the relationshipbetweensocial stress and cardiovascular pathology. Twentyyears ago, theywere simplefarmers engagedin subAll a man neededto be recognized sistenceagriculture. in his villagewas a thatched house and a wifeand children;no one had any cash savings.Today manv men aspire to leadership. They own cars,and their main occupation is as contractors engagedin government projectsin threeor moredistant villages, fromone project to the otherfrommorning rushing to night. They own severalhouses,keep multiplefamilies scattered all over the place, and come to the hospitalbegging formedicine to be able to sleep. Next to malariaas a local killer now comes I never saw in my firstten years an affliction hypertension, in the area.

Rodin,Michaelson,and Britan:SYSTEMS

THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY

its promise. Eitherthat,or the insights provided by the model are alreadyso powerful are shyto apply thatSoviet scientists themin situ.

by STANLEY A. WEST Environmental Laboratory, U.S. ArmyEngineerWaterways Miss. 39180, U.S.A. 21 vi 78 Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Although I subscribe to manyof the ideas in Rodin,Michaelson, and Britan'spaper,I shall employthese comments to deby DANIELA WEINBERG scribe developments in the "soft" systemsmethodswhichI Departmentof Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lin- feel theyneglect. coln,Lincoln,Nebr. 68588, U.S.A. 21 vi 78 In theirdiscussionof "The State of the Art,"Rodin et al. The authors' hope that theirpaper "will spread a growing aver that "the greatest technical advancesin systems analysis awareness of thepromise of systems in anthropol- have occurred perspectives notin anthropology, but in thenaturalsciences." ogy" is not likelyto be realized.The constraint of reporting They ignorean important in systemsanalysis, development the discussions at the World Anthropology-1977 Conference however,when they recommend that anthropologists should prevents the authorsfrom performing a muchgreater seek approaches"more consonant witha quantitative service: systems a simple,clear,and balanced presentation writing of general framework" numbersof (my emphasis), because increasing systemstheoryaimed at the anthropological novice. In this researchers are turning sophisticated systems away from rigorrespect, thepaperalso failsto meeta fundamental techor adopting requirement ous quantitative methods and are developing of CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY-tocommunicate with colleagues niques based on weak mathematical assumptions (van Gigch who are not members of an innercircleof initiates. Historical and Pipino 1977; Negoita and Ralescu 1975; West 1977a: and bibliographic for theirpaper imbalance are evident in theoveremphasis on chaps. 3, 7). An excellent point of departure Soviet writers A SystemParin Social Scienzce: (many of whoseworks, wouldhave been Explanation incidentally, have been translatedinto English-for references, see von Bertalanffy adigm (Meehan 1968). Meehan's perspectiveis compatible and Rapoport 1956-78) and the absence of references scienceand also leads one as a nondeductive withanthropology to certain seminalWestern works(Boulding 1956,Ashby1961). away fromthe deductiveparadigmof science (and systems A recentbook of particular value to the beginning systems theory)whichis too evidentin the paper. For once weak is theoristwho is also a social scientistis G. M. Weinberg's good,notbad, in thatour oftenqualitative anthropological ap(1975) An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. The plicationsof this new wave of systems analysiswould be untitlehighlights a major problemwhichRodin et al. are aware the tools used. likelyto rape the assumptions underlying of but do not resolve.Generalsystems of theory is not a theory Examples of "soft" methodsinclude the mathematics at all. It is a way of thinking, an approachto dealingwiththe graph theory(West 1977b) and fuzzy-set theory.Fuzzy-set complexity of the real world,and a heuristic device for the rewas pioneered theory by Zadeh (1965), an internationally definition and resolution of real-world problems.It is not a in ordersystemspectedsystems analystand control theorist, questionof linearalgebraor decisiontheory or Markov chains atically to handle imprecision(or vagueness) somewhatas or predators. Rather, thekeyto understanding systems thinking probability In the theoryhelps one to confront uncertainty. is the idea of controlled isomorphism. Generalsystems theory 13 years since Zadeh's initialarticle,publications in fuzzy-set is thebranchof sciencethatspecializesin the studyof modeltheoryand its applicationshave come to numberover 1,000 ling.A systems thinker lives in a worldof analogies. As Bouldschool of systems (Gaines and Kohout 1977). This emerging ing once put it, he or she will step offthe plane in Bangkok, analysisnow constitutes visible a fairly extensive, increasingly glancearound, and remark howlikePittsburgh it is. How many development (Zadeh et al. 1975, Negoita and Ralescu 1975, of OUrskepticalcolleagueswould be turnedon insteadof off van Gigchand Pipino 1977, Gottinger 1973,Kaufmann1975). if we could communicate to themthe fundamental simplicity Zadeh now interprets fuzzy-set theory as a theory of possiand playfulness of truesystems thinking ! Then,and onlythen, bilityand observesthathumandecisions are based moreupon 758
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

which catastrophe, complexity-allthephenomena proveto be or morespecialized thedownfall of simpler theories. Maruyama themanner (1978a) has recently in whicha newlogidiscussed cal structure characterized is expanding by suchphenomena its influence in all sciences. in its scope, domain,and 2. The approachis totallyflexible rangeof application. The same formalconceptsmay be used reiteratively to construct quitesophisticated modelsfrom primitive elements.Birdwhistell (1972) has shaped the scienceof kinesicsin this manner, adaptinga few basic tools fromthe linguist's kit. 3. The fact thatthe essenceof any system is behavioral or relational thanmaterial rather allows fora revolutionary manner of unitizing social and cultural and measuring phenomena. such as "superorganic" and "ethos" are brought Metaconcepts closerto operational definition. considerably not onlytestablehypotheses, 4. The approachgenerates but also operational and modelswithin paradigms whichany number of such hypotheses may be generatedand ordered.The processof scientific inquirycan be muchmorethoroughly organizedthanhas been trueheretofore (cf. Churchman 1971). I have foundit veryhelpfulin my own researchto use an elementary form of systems theory, reducedto a set of simple, formal statements. These can be appliedto the construction of a conceptual bridgeacross conventional methanthropological ods (e.g., via isomorphic comparison).In thismannertwo or moremethods can be takenas supplemental perspectives, and models previouslyconsideredunrelatedcan be viewed comThe use of theterm"system" paratively. is reserved formodels in whichanalysis (preferably has verified the multi-method) presenceof constraint or pattern in the data.

mightthey have enough conviction of the value of the approach to go on to computerized simulations and othersuch technological sophistications. Rodin et al. pointout that systems thinking and anthropology share a beliefin holism.I will add two more articlesof faithheld in common:the comparative approach(seen in systemsthinking as controlled-isomorphic model-building) and the processual-evolutionary approach by whichboth sciencesexpresstheirconcern withchange.Systemsthinking and anthropology are reallymetasciences. Isomorphism and the culture conceptare theirrespective methodologies, and complexity is theircommon subject matter. Weinberg,in exemplarysystems-thinking style, has suggestedthe following analogy: the systems-theory movement is to science as ready-to-wear fashionis to haute couture.The chain-store shirt, like the stochastic model,offers the consumer a low-priced and serviceable product.A gentleman can safely send his shirteven to a Europeanlaundry, fromwhichit will emerge boiled but unscathed. He has paid a pricein styleand qualityforthe dependability he has gained.Justso, good systemsthinking mustbe open and comprehensible to thelargely consumerswho buy it for its usefulnessalone. uninformed This is a requisite not onlyof systems models but also of papers on "SystemsTheory in Anthropology." Unfortunately, the present paper lacks the common touchand thus does not fulfill thepromise of its title.

beliefsabout what is feasibleand the assumedmeaning(e.g., thanuponsubjective estimates of the value) of thealternatives of probabilities of events (1977a:1-2). Also, in appreciation the virtuesof naturallanguagesas vague media forcommuniuse of the linguistic cation,Zadeh promotes approachto fuzzy sets, "in whichwords ratherthan numbersare employedto the values of variablesas well as characterize approximately between them"(1977b:1-2). It makesgreatsense therelations and concepts as fuzzy to interpret words,cognitive categories, sets (Kay 1975,Pierce 1977,West 1977c). too oftenpresumethat more precision Although scientists is better thanless precision, thereis considerable evidencethat certain fuzzysystems outperform sharpor preciseones. Mamdani and Assilian(1975), forexample, have achievedexcellent resultsby applyingcrude computerized fuzzy controllers to complexindustrial processes.The rules in the controllers are variables (e.g., stated usingratherundiscriminating linguistic thevariableSPEED ERROR has sevenpossiblevalues,including "positivebig," "positivemedium,"and "positivesmall"), the rules comhuman operatorsformulated and experienced prising the control strategy. Mamdaniand his co-workers have controllers are too Prothatprecisealgorithmic demonstrated crustean to permiteffective systemcontrol. Dimitrov(1976) of the Bulgarian Academyof Sciencesemploys symbolic logic to prove that the optimalgovernance of social systems is fuzzy. His logicincludes the following reasoning: According to Ashby's(1963 :206) cybernetic law of requisite variety,any effective controlof a given systemmust encompassat least as muchvarietyas the systemto be concontrolled. whichinherently Hence, control of social systems tain enormous also latentvarietyrequiresthat the controller be capable of manifesting it is the immense variety. Ironically, veryimprecision of instructions statedin naturallanguageand of in otherculturalrules whichpermitseffective governance instructions The virtueof fuzzyrulesand fuzzy social systems. adis that each can be givenmultipleinterpretation, thereby to enable conmitting varietyand permitting enoughfreedom attunedto compelling trol to be flexibly empiricalconditions. to be fuzzy it is desirableformuchof any culture Therefore, to reflect its subject of studyby being and for anthropology equally fuzzy. I am convinced thatas anthropologists who employsystems use of "soft" systems analysismake increasing methodssucl as fuzzy-set thatthewedding theory, theywill discover is comfortable as wellas expeditious. Rodin,Michaelson, and Britan's not justified, neglectof thissubjectis explained, though if the panel discussionon whichtheyreportlargelyavoided "soft" methods. systems

Rodin,Miclhaelson, and Britan:SYSTEMS

THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Reply
by MIRIAM RODIN Chicago,Ill., U.S.A. 26 vii 78 For myself and my co-authors I would like to thankall those who commented on our report.I am especiallypleased to see that several commentators expandon pointswe raised.Some, however, criticize us fornot doingwhatwe said we wouldnot do. For theirbenefit I shall take this opportunity to restate our purpose. Our reportorganizedwritten and verbal materialsaround themesthat ran through a professional discussion. In several places, we amplified the documents by reference to published sourcesor to examples from our ownknowledge. Our aim at all times, however, was to stickto thesubstance of the conference. As we stated quite clearly,this reportis neither a reviewof Vol. 19 * No. 4 * December 1978

nor a primer theory in anthropology on systems the literature A portionof in systemstheoryfor the novice ethnographer. withthe spethe discussionmay by-passreadersless familiar cifics of systemstheoriesand modelingtechniques.On the the we maynot have satisfied otherhand,boundby thegenre, the extent to which the comments specialist.We interpret of our each otheras a step towardsfulfillment complement the exchangeof ideas on systems further intentto stimulate points interesting Several particularly theory in anthropology. were raisedto whichI will respond. of WestThe impactof systems thinking in thedevelopment less ern science constitutes, in the opinionof many,nothing of sysThe earliestconception thana paradigmatic revolution. constudiesof simplehomeostats temsgrewout of empirical Anomalous of the 20th century. ducted near the beginning growth and differsuch as those of embryonic observations, of inin relativenumbers or of cyclicaloscillations entiation to question led scientists and preyspecies, dividuals in predator Newtonianuniverse. notion of the clockwork the prevailing for example, Closer to the social sciences,Freud's thinking, as he developed a model of the was clearlyproto-systemic, by energyflows,differentiation, human psyche characterized of the mind.This progressive and conflict among subsystems untouched. has left few disciplines shiftin epistemology whichplaces these We thank Espinola for his statement, out the implicacontext, and for drawing eventsin historical tions.Not onlyhave the humanistic sciencesbecome"harder" but the phvsicalsciences as a resultof the systems revolution, conare becoming Thus we do not see anyinherent humanized. in urging the developas do severalcommentators, tradiction, ment of both quantitative and qualitativemethodsof model inductive the paradigm, in elaborating Furthermore, building. each to the mustproceedconcurrently, and deductive reasoning the of the other. As I inferfrom Espinola's discussion, benefit in theincreasing which has resulted des me'thodes renversement techniques need not implyor necessarily use of quantitative trend towards sterile materialistic produce a dehumanizing and dethe use of quantitative models.Properlyunderstood, ductivetechniques may well have the oppositeeffect. to into his own efforts Maruyama's(1978a, b) references and differentiamodelsof growth creaseawarenessof systems tion and of self-organizing systemsare a case in point. Alat times,the notionthat his neologisms can be baffling though a universetendingtowardsincreasing entropycontainssuband forincreaswiththe capacityforself-organization systems is a significant shiftin (negentropy) ing levels of complexity his own work.Contemporary scientific epistemology predating theoriesof evolutionrest on this paradigm.Among others, (1967) and Rapoport(1966) Buckley(1967), von Bertalanffy in social systems. Within have dealtwithaspectsof negentropy this framework, Maruyama's observationof the importance or low shortduration even of relatively of positivefeedback, in stimulating profoundchangesin the state of a intensity, is most useful.It is perhapsthis typeof phenomenon system social which will prove valuable in analyzingrevolutionary changeof the orderdiscussedby Moran. These are the types withwhichmathematicians of problems catastrophe developing theirproofsremaincontroversial. are engaged, though theory Dow and VanDeusen appear to be askingone of the questhepanel but was notdealtwithin much tionswhichconcerned a large numberof attractive detail. There is unquestionably how to adapt modelsbeingbattedaround.Specifically systems modelsforuse in anthropology presents problems. appropriate of carea matter it is largely As Dow and VanDeusen suggest, ful scholarship, selectivelychoosingmodels appropriateto of the boththe properties understanding thoroughly problems, of it entails.Dow's strategy modelanfd the analytictechniques

reducing complexity, of which we wouldliketo have seenmore seems to be similarto VanDeusen's strategy of building fron simpleelements. Because of the brevity of his comment, how ever,Dow's easy transition fromindividual decisionsto socia normsis troublesome. It impliesa theoretical positionon thi relationship betweencognition and behaviorand glossesmans difficult methodological problems. The triangulation of methodsand of systematic searchin~ forstructural isomorphism suggested by VanDeusen was men tionedin passingin thepanel. Elsewhere I have advocatedthi: strategy forurbanethnographers (Rodin 1977). I have foun4 thatthe use of variousstatistical methods forsurvey and sec ondarydata combined withmorequalitative participant-obser vation,mapping, formalelicitation of categoriesfrominfor mants, and use of historical documents provides verification o intuitive modelsas well as identifying incongruities suggestin, errors in the models.It is not entirely clear fromthe context however, howVanDeusenis usingthephrase"isomorphic com parison." If he is referring to the comparison of systems oi the basis of mathematical homology, he is perhapsaware o the conservative positiontakenby Conantand Ashby(1970) They qualifythe level of valuable comparison by stating tha homology is acceptableprovidedthatit is confined to a com parisonof relations betweenthe subsetof regulatory element and the system as a whole.That is, theyregardas valid com parisonsbetweensystemson the basis of how theyare con trolled,ratherthan total-systems comparisons. of theuses of mathe We mustthank West forhis exposition maticalmodelsbased on weak assumptions, such as fuzzy-se and graphtheory. He usefully betweenquantita distinguishes tive methodsand mathematics whichwa. per se, a distinction of fuzz' perhapsnot well drawnin the report. His discussion abov( controlis especiallyrelevant in view of our comments and of Moran's discussion of the heterogeneity of beliefsanc in large-scale, if not all values and noncongruence of interests humansocieties. to whichWest alludes woulc literature The large technical of Tewa worlc cause us to questionJacobs's interpretation Even though view as completely explicit. any Tewa adult car explain everydaylife in relationalterms,one is temptedtc actual decision-making wonder whetherthis represents pro cesses or ex post facto rationales.That the Tewa view th4 relationsdoe; nonlinear of harmonious world as constructed reasonto label themnon sufficient not to our mindconstitute In the courseof thepanel Dobbert theorists. Western systems and in a previousvolume of this journal Shweder (1977) nativecog formodeling methods have suggested amongothers, of such phenomena and styles.The stability nitivecategories over timeis also subject to investigation. and disturdo not assume that intrusions Systemstheories This is prebances necessarily destroysociocultural systems. is discussed one of which thedomain of control cisely theory, by and Hispanoscan occupythe West.The factthatTewa, Anglos, one anothersugsame space without significantly influencing is strongly a geststhateach ethnic entity bounded, constituting discrete of suchsocialboundThe verymaintenance subsystem. aries impliesa mechanism of control. Yet, we findit hard to believethatTewa have devisedor evolvedno response to thE presence of other culturalgroups. Rather, Tewa relational propositions may serve to frame, control, and limitthe inevitable intrusion on theirlifeof Angloand Hispanic influences a system ways.As Moranimplies, maypersist apparently-and we emphasizeapparently-unchanged untilit suddently disinforlong-term staOn the otherhand,the conditions tegrates. issues to remainimportant loss of adaptability bilitywithout be studied.The Tewa may providean example. Moran is quite correctin identifying the studyof conflict as an important priority in anthropological researchand in tweakingour complacency adheringto the ritual recitatior about anthropology as a holisticscience. There are a few~ 760

pointsthatrequiresome expansion. The multivocality of symbols and theirdifferential acceptanceamongpartsof the same societyare familiar to manyethnographers. Furthermore, ambiguity is a characteristic of humancommunication. These factors do indeed relate to underlying or even obvious stresses in societiesleadingin some cases to conflict. Withina single society,the presenceof a varietyof adaptive patternsmay createstrain at one pointin timebut supplyusefulalternatives when conditions change; that is, adaptive potentialmay increasethrough internal heterogeneity. De Ruijter wonderswhy Levi-Strausswas not singledout for attention. His own choice of words containsthe germof our answer. Levi-Strauss'sgreat contribution was in recognizingthe way in whichunderlying relational principles order cognition across several domains,in directing anthropologists to distinguish betweenreal and ideal, and in givingimpetus to formal analysisof rulesystems. His structuralism, however, lacks a means of accountingfor conflict and for contingent behavior.It is significant that de Ruijter statesthatthe work of Levi-Strauss"gives rise to three possible interpretations of the distinctions between mechanical and statistical models." Levi-Strausshimself does not offer these interpretations. We " a connecare not sure what de Ruijter meansby the third, tionwitha different kindof-discipline-tied-approach." With respectto his particularquestions,Shimkinand Lowe have personally communicated the following: Shimkin and Lowe's use of mechanical versusstatistical models from derives Levi-Strauss's (1953) "Social Structure." The point weremaking is thatbothtypes they ofmodels are intrinsic to both and behavior cognition and that one shouldnot be regarded as morefundamental because each implies theother. Underlying stais a sample tistical models spaceof probabilities (Feller1968),and thatis a sharpconceptual underlying typology. But in constructing mechanical models one selects from an indenumerably infinite number of possibilities and, as a result, can neverbe certain a It is herethatthecomputation modelwillbe adequate. particular ofhuman limitations alsocome intoplay.Further, itis known beings from G6del'sproof modelwillcompletely thatno mechanical capturereality. Thesefactors of arbitrariness inand incompleteness troducea necessary in the working of conceptual uncertainty modelsin the real world-an uncertainty statistical. ineluctably in a theorem of gametheory whichstatesthat (This is reflected in games ofimperfect information notpurestratmixed strategies, areusually is notthatmechanical egies, The point optimal.) and/or or thatthey ofhuman be created, statistical models cannot activity the may not be usefulin some cases,but ratherto emphasize nature of bothcognition and behavior. interactive BeatriceMillerraisesseveralof the samepointsthatinterest Moran. In modeling a system, one mustbe careful not to confuse manifest purpose with latent function, not to attribute collectivegoals to component individuals.Political scientists have soughtto characterize different kinds of consensus, but this need not deter us fromrecognizing aspects of conflict, and cooperation competition, among disparateculturalor interest groups.It is thispointwhichMillermayhave misunderthe to ecologicalfallacy.Not attributing stoodin our reference in no way deniesor obviates aggregate's purposeto individuals littledisThe relatively of purposeto individuals. attribution as systems cussiongivenoverto thestudyof individuals simply of thepanel,as Millermay remember. reflects the composition trained to examine social We wereby and largesocial scientists and theirculturaldoings.A groupof psychologists groupings have dweltmore on the level of interest and clinicians might of social and cultural to her.The importance, however, change and but emotional not onlyobservable in influencing behavior, to individuals cannotbe denied. physiologic processesinternal Okojie has presented an immediate and pressing example of the need forappliedresearch in psycho-physiological processunder conditions of sociocultural change. There seem,finally, to b.etwo generalcategories of critique leveled at systems workin anthropology. These appear in one
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

in severalof the comments and have appeared or more forms in journal articlesand exchanges. elsewhere They seem to be in moreor less limited to anthropology; we see themless often and relatedfields, even though the sociological, psychological, the substance of theirconcern is oftensimilar to our own.The double-barreled chargeof functionalism and deductive reasoningis oftenaimedas blanketcriticism of systems analyses. We oughtto reexamine the emotionaland rationalbaggageassociated withthe place of functional analysisand of deductive in anthropology. vs. inductive reasoning cerThe tensionbetweenfunctionalism and structuralism tainlypre-datesthe presentcontextand may be traceableto the debate between Malinowskian and Radcliffe-Brownian schools.Few anthropologists today,even those avowedlyconcernedwithproducing functional accounts (e.g., Goldschmidt 1966), would maintainthat all behaviors, institutional forms, or beliefs to social cohesionor increased necessarily contribute irrelevant adaptivecapacity.Much of whatpeople do is either to or destructive of such, if viewed functionally. Studies of conflict, competition, and changeare addressedto this point. Functionalanalyses thus ought to be critically evaluated in termsof the ethnographers' dispassionate willingness to report things as theyare. One can oftendetecta certaindefensiveness,in ethnographic reports of beliefsor practices which harm healthor close off thepotential foradaptation, in theappeal to the implied"benefit" of promoting groupcohesion.Thoughtfully conceived, a functional systems analysis is no moreprone to thissortof naivetethanalliance,exchange, or othermodes of analysis. A further point to be raised is the ready identification by several commentators of systemsand functional analyses as one and the same. While systems epistemology oftendoes informneo-functionalist analyses,it need not. Systemsthinking occursin manytheoretical settings quitedivorced from narrowly functional concerns. Criticswho make the association mentionedexpandthe notionof functionalism to mean any examinationof the relationship betweenbeliefs or behaviorsand environmental conditions or demographic factors. By thatdefinition, nearlyall social scienceis functionalist. This does not deny the importanceof cognitive, symbolic,and semantic studiesof myth, literature, and mentallife per se. Rather,the two modesare properly complementary. Unlesswe are willing to take the extreme stance that causal investigations of complex phenomena are somehowimpure,the co-development of functional and structural analyses,with or withoutsystems seems assured.Since systems methods(for hisepistemology, torical reasons in Westernsocieties) are readilyadapted to broadlyfunctional concerns, this area has receivedmore attention. On the otherhand, studiesof symbolism, ritual,and infusions have benefitted of cybercognition greatlythrough neticand information theory. of critiquederivesfromthe antiquanThe second category Here again,the titative bias of some culturalanthropologists. quibble is more apparentthan real. Statisticalmethodsand as formal mathematical modeling mayequallyas well generate test hypotheses. Seen holistically, the research processis both inductive and deductive. While purelydeductivestudiesmay not satisfy the creativeappetitesof manyof us, if we do not however elemotivated pursuethe hypotheses by our theories, gantlyinduced,we will be saddled withuntriedspeculations. Nor is deductivereasoningculture-bound. Having read, adin translation, several Ming Dynasty philosophical mittedly tracts, I am convincedthat deductive argumentis not a uniquelyWesternmode of thought. A morepragmatic the realitiesof academic point concerns studies life.Funding agenciesincreasingly prefer highly specific of a practicalnature.Our non-Western colleaguesare faced withimmediate needs forusefulinformation to guide development.Systems epistemology is an integral partof theplanning process. Anthropologists did not participateearly enoughin
T -A
A. 7

Rodin, Mhichaelson, and Britan:SYSTEMS

THEORY IN ANTHROPOLOGY

this enterprise in the West, and we, especiallyour poor, are payingforit. Ideally,a balance can be struck between the requirements of applied researchand the continuing need for theoretical advances.Without thelatter, in non-Westplanning ern contexts can onlylead us to repeatour mistakes.

Cited References
ASHBY, W. Ross. New York: 1961. Introductionto cybernetics. [DW] Wiley. New York: Science to cybernetics. . 1963. An introduction [SAW] Editions. AUGER, P. 1952. L'homme microscopique. Paris: Albin Michel. [JCE] BATESON, GREGORY. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Fran[JMV] cisco: Chandler. New York: PerBENNETT, JOHN W. 1976. The ecologicaltransition. gamon Press. Philadelphia: UniBIRDWHISTELL, RAY. 1970. Kinesics and context. [JMV] versityof PennsylvaniaPress. studiesof cities.Annual ReBLANTON,R. E. 1976. Anthropological 5:249-64. view of Anthropology BLAUBERG,I. V., V. N. SADOVSKIY, and E. G. YUDIN. 1969. Sistemniy podkhod: Predposylki,problemy,trudnosti (The systems Novoye v Zhizni, problems,difficulties). approach: Assumptions, Nauki, Tekhnike,Seriya"Filosofia" 2. BOGUSLAW,R. 1965. The new Utopians: A study of systemdesign and social change.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. of Michigan BOULDING, K. 1956. The image. Ann Arbor: University [DW] Press. BUCKLEY, W. 1967. Sociology and modernsystemstheory.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. CHURCHMAN, C. W. 1971. The design of inquiringsystems.New [JMV] York: Basic Books. CLARKE, D. L. 1968. Analyticalarchaeology.London: Methuen. CONANT,R. C., and W. R. ASHBY. 1970. Every good regulator of a Journal of systemmustbe a model of that system.International SystemsScience 1(2): 89-97. COUNT, EARL W. 1973. Being and becominghuman: Essays on the [BDM] New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. biogram. DIMITROV, VLADIMIR. 1976. Informal theory of fuzzy governing. and at the 3d European Meeting on Cybernetics Paper presented [SAW] SystemsResearch,April 20-23, Vienna, Austria. DOBBERT, M. L. 1975. Anotherroute to a generaltheoryof cultural and Education Quartransmission. Committeeon Anthropology terly6:22-26. in anthropology:A systems . 1977. Data and generalization at the annual meetingof the American proposal.Paper presented Association,Houston, Tex. Anthropological Dow, JAMES. 1976. Systemsmodels of culturalecology.Social Sci15:953-76. ence Information to probabilitytheory FELLER, W. 1968. 3d edition.An introduction and its applications.Vol. 1. New York: Wiley. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. dynamics. FORRESTER,J. W. 1969. Urban behavior of social systems.Tech. 1971. Counter-intuitive nologyReview 73(3):52-68. GAINES, B. R., and L. J. KOHOUT. 1977. The fuzzydecade: A bibliand closelyrelatedtopics.International ographyof fuzzysystems [SAW] Journalof Man-Machine Studies 9:1-68. of cultures.New York: Basic GEERTZ, C. 1973. The interpretation Books. Berkeley:UniGOLDSCHMIDT, W. 1966. Comparativefunctionalism. of CaliforniaPress. versity GOTTINGER,H. W. 1973. Towards a fuzzy reasoningin the behav[SAW] ioural sciences.Cybernetica16(2):113-35. M. N. 1974. Strukturalism: Osnovnyye problemy i GRETSKIY, ocherk) (Structuralism:Basic urovniikh resheniya(Kriticheskiy problemsand levels of resolution[A criticalsketch]). Nauchnyye Nauki 4. Doklady VyscheyShkoly,Filosofskiye GUSDORF, G. 1957. Para una historia de la ciencia del hombre. [JCE] Diogenes 5:105-24. Translated by J. Viertel. and practice. HABERMAS,J. 1973. Theory Boston: Beacon Press. IGNATYEV, A. A., and A. I. YABLONSKY. 1976. "Analiticheskiye of (The analyticalstructure nauchnoykommunikatsiyi struktury communication),"in Sistemnyyeissledovaniya yezhoscientific godnik1975 (Systemsresearchyearbook 1975). Moscow: Nauka. KAUFMANN, A. 1975. Introductionto the theoryof fuzzy subsets.

IA,

761

Vol. 1. Elements of basic theory.New York: Academic Press. [SAW] a la theoriedes sous-ensembles 1975-77.Introduction flous. [JCE] 3 vols. Paris, New York, Barcelona,Milan: Masson. [SAW] KAY, PAUL. 1975. Color categoriesas fuzzy sets. MS. and so(Cybernetics und Gesellschaft KLAus, G. 1964. Kybernetik ciety). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. KLIR, G. J. Editor. 1972. Trends in general systemstheory.New York: Wiley-Interscience. KUENZLEN, M. 1972. Playing urban games: The systemsapproach to planning.Boston: i Press. behaviorin a Sikh village.Berkeley: LEAF, M. J. 1972. Information of CaliforniaPress. University LEE, G., and T. K. HUNG. Editors. 1976. Proceedingsof the SpePlanon Human Factors in Civil Engineering, cialty Conference ning,Design, and Education. Buffalo: State Universityof New York at Buffalo. en ethnologie," 1958. "La notionde structure CLAUDE. LEVI-STRAUSS, pp. 303-53. Paris. Plon. (Originally structurale, in Anthropologie today. Edited published as "Social structure"in Anthropology by A. L. Kroeber, pp. 524-53. Chicago: Universityof Chicago [AD] Press, 1953.) in linMAMDANI, E. H., and S. ASSILIAN.1975. An experiment JourInternational witha fuzzylogic controller. guisticsynthesis [SAW] nal of Man-Machine Studies 7:1-13. kultury(Sketchesof a theMARKARIAN, E. S. 1969. Ocherkiteoriyi AkademiyiNauk. ory of culture). Yerevan: Armyanskoy issledovaniyaobshchestva(Prob. 1972. Voprosysistemnogo analysisof society). Novoye v Zhizni,Nauki, lemsin the systems Tekhnike,Seriya "Filosofia" 3. I. V. 1977. "Prospektivnayasvyaz v sistemenauchMARSHAKOVA, publinykhpublikatsiyi(Prospectiveties in systemsof scientific 1976 (Systems issledovaniyayezhegodnik cation)," in Sistemnyye researchyearbook 1976). Moscow: Nauka. Britepistemology. 1961. Communicational MAGOROH. MARUYAMA, ish Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11:319-27; 12:52-62, [SEJ] 117-31. or Wisdom beunderstanding, . 1975. Trans-epistemological [SEJ] MS. yond theories. . 1978a. Prigogine's epistemologyand its implicationsfor [SEJ, 19:453-55. the social sciences.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY JMV] Toward a new and morphogenetics: . 1978b. Heterogenistics Theory and Society 5(1):75-96. conceptof the scientific. MEEHAN, EUGENE J. 1968. Explanation in social science: A sys[SAW] tem paradigm.Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press. DIAMOND.1972. "General systemstheory: An MILLER, BEATRICE approach to the study of complex societies,"in Anthropological approaches to the study of a complex society.Edited by B. C. Agrawal,pp. 17-35. New Delhi: Indian Academy of Social Sciences. [BDM] . 1974. The individual,survival,support,and supra systems: A generalsystemsapproach. Paper presentedat annual meeting [BDM] Society,Chicago,Ill. of CentralStates Anthropological . 1975. "Culture" vs. "culturing"and educational futures: A Buddhistparadigm.Paper presentedat the annual meetingof Association,Symposium on Anthe American Anthropological thropologicalContributionsto the Future of Education, San [BDM] Francisco, Calif. of cur. 1977. Can we get therefromhere? The limitations rent social technologyand the futureof applied anthropology. at the annual meetingof the Societyfor Applied Paper presented [BDM] San Diego, Calif. Anthropology, MILLER, R. J. 1971. Biology and culture:Are theyseparable? Journal of Social Research 13:127-39. C. V., and D. A. RALESCU. 1975. Applications of fuzzy NEGOITA, sets to systemsanalysis. Stuttgart:Birkhauser. [SAW] power, and society. New T. 1971. Environment, ODUM, HOWARD York: Wiley. 1969. The Tewa world. Chicago: Universityof ORTIZ,ALFONSO. [SEJI Chicago Press. PARK,R. 1969. "The city,"in Classic essays on the cultureof cities. Edited by R. Sennet. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. PIERCE,JOE E. 1977. Culture: A collectionof fuzzy sets. Human 36:197-200. [SAW] Organization PLOG,F. T. 1975. Systems theoryin archaeological research.An4:207-24. nual Review of Anthropology RADNITZKY, G. 1974. Toward a system philosophy of scientific research.Philosophy of the Social Sciences,no. 4. A. 1966. "Conceptualizationof a system as a matheRAPOPORT, matical model," in Operational researchand the social sciences. Edited by J. R. Laurence, pp. 515-29. London: Tavistock.

RODIN,M. B. 1977. The urban citizens: Bethel Park, Chicago. UJnUniversityof Illinois, Urbana, Ill. publishedPh.D. dissertation, SADOVSKIY, V. N. 1974. Osnovaniya obshchey teoriyisistem: Loanalyz (Foundations of a generaltheory giko-metodologicheskiy analysis). Moscow: Nauka. of systems:A logico-methodological SHIMKIN, D. B. 1973. "Models for the downfall: Some ecological in The Classic Maya colconsiderations," and culture-historical of New lapse. Edited by P. T. Culbert.Albuquerque: University Mexico Press. SHIMKIN, D. B., S. HYLAND, and M. RODIN. 1977. "Community dynamicsassessment."Proceedings of the Specialty Conference Planning,Design, and on Human Factors in Civil Engineering, of New York at Buffalo. Education. Buffalo: State University R. A. 1977. Likenessand likelihoodin everydaythought: SHWEDER, ANin judgmentsabout personality.CURRENT Magical thinking 18:637-58. THROPOLOGY V. 1977. Process, system,and symbol: A new anthropoTURNER, Daedalus, Summer,pp. 61-80. logical synthesis. VAN GIGCH,JOHNP., and L. L. PIPINo. 1977. "Fuzzy set theory and decision making in the inexact sciences." The general systems paradigm: Science of change and change of science; Proceedings of the North AmericanMeeting, Society for General Systems Research, Denver, Colo., February 21-25, pp. 308-13. [SAW] Paris: Flammarion. [JCE] Vieetprobabilite'. P. 1942. VENDRYE'S, New York: theory. system L. 1967. General VON BERTALANFFY, Braziller. Editors. 1956-78. General L., and A. RAPOPORT. VONBERTALANFFY, systemsyearbook.Ann Arbor: Society for General SystemsRe[DW] search. 1947. 2d edition. The J.,and D. MORGENSTERN. VON NEUMANN, theoryof games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton Press. University New ANTHONYF. C. 1961. Cultureand personality. WALLACE, [BDM] York: Random House. G. M. 1972. "A computerapproach to generalsystems WEINBERG, in Trendsin generalsystemstheory.Edited by G. Klir. theory," New York: Wiley-Interscience. . 1975. An introductionto general systems thinking.New York: Wiley-Interscience. [DW] WEST, STANLEY A. 1977a. Perspectivesand tools for coping with systems.Department of Civil Engisociotechnicalengineering MassachusettsInstituteof Technology,Research Report neering, [SAW] R77-20, vol. 2. Pamethodsas judgmentheuristics. . 1977b. "Soft" systems per prepared for the 1st InternationalConferenceon Applied General Systems Research: Recent Developments and Trends, N.Y. [SAW] August 15-19, Binghamton, . 1977c. Softwarefor applied cognitiveanthropology:Social impact assessmentas systemsanalysis. Paper presentedto the San annual meetingof the Society for Applied Anthropology, [SAW] Diego, Calif.,April 9. WHITE, LESLIE A. 1975. The concept of cultural systems.New Press. York: Columbia University modeliynauchnoydeyaA. I. 1976. "Stokasticheskiye YABLONSKY, study)," in Sistemnyye telnosti (Stochastic models of scientific issledovaniye yezhegodnik 1975 (Systems research yearbook 1975). Moscow: Nauka. nauki (Neko. 1977. "Strukturai dinamika sovremmenoy problemy) (Structureand dynamics toryyemetodologicheskiye problems])," in science [Certainmethodological of contemporary Sistemnyyeissledovaniya yezhegodnik1976 (Systems research yearbook 1976). Moscow: Nauka. 8:338and Control LOTFI A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information ZADEH, 53. [SAW] . 1977a. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. MemorandumNo. UCB/ERL M77/12, College of Engineering, of California,Berkeley. [SAW] University relationsas of preference . 1977b.Linguisticcharacterization MemorandumNo. UCB/ERL a basis forchoicein social systems. of California,BerkeUniversity M77/24, College of Engineering, [SAW] ley. and MASAMICHI LOTFIA., KING-SUN Fu, KOKicii TANAKA, ZADEH, SHIMURA.Editors. 1975. Fuzzy sets and their applications to cognitive and decision process. New York: Academic Press. [SAW] 1976. "Metodologicheskiye ZINCHENIKO, V. J.,and V. M. GORDON. analyza deyatelnosti (Methodoproblemy psykhologicheskogo logical problemsof the psychologicalanalysis of behavior)," in Sistemnyyeissledovaniya yezhegodnik1975 (Systems research yearbook 1975). Moscow: Nauka.

762

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY