« The theories of political anthropology » : différence entre les versions
Ligne 147 : | Ligne 147 : | ||
Although the anthropology of this period was still heavily influenced by the idea of developmental hierarchies between societies - an idea that was often used to justify colonial rule - it began to pave the way for a more genuine and respectful recognition of otherness. This meant that scholars began to accept and value other cultures not for their resemblance or conformity to Western norms, but for what they are in themselves. This approach highlighted the diversity and richness of human cultures, and showed that each society has its own logic, its own values and its own ways of structuring social and political life. Thus, despite its limitations and biases, nineteenth-century anthropology laid the foundations for a more balanced and respectful approach to otherness, which has become a central principle of contemporary anthropology. However, it is important to note that this was a long and difficult process, and that the struggle against prejudice and stereotypes is still relevant in anthropological research and in intercultural relations more broadly. | Although the anthropology of this period was still heavily influenced by the idea of developmental hierarchies between societies - an idea that was often used to justify colonial rule - it began to pave the way for a more genuine and respectful recognition of otherness. This meant that scholars began to accept and value other cultures not for their resemblance or conformity to Western norms, but for what they are in themselves. This approach highlighted the diversity and richness of human cultures, and showed that each society has its own logic, its own values and its own ways of structuring social and political life. Thus, despite its limitations and biases, nineteenth-century anthropology laid the foundations for a more balanced and respectful approach to otherness, which has become a central principle of contemporary anthropology. However, it is important to note that this was a long and difficult process, and that the struggle against prejudice and stereotypes is still relevant in anthropological research and in intercultural relations more broadly. | ||
= | = The contributions of Amerindian and Africanist anthropology = | ||
== | == Africanist anthropology and the discovery of systems of political organisation == | ||
[File:Evans Pritchard (1902–1973).jpeg|thumb|E. E. Evans-Pritchard. | |||
The book "African Political Systems" published by Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes in 1940 was an important contribution to political anthropology. It was one of the first books that really emphasised the importance of understanding the political systems of non-Western societies on their own terms, rather than judging them by Western criteria. The book brought together eight case studies of different African societies, ranging from centralised chieftaincy systems to stateless societies organised around complex systems of kinship and reciprocal relations. These studies highlighted the diversity and complexity of political organisation in Africa, and challenged conventional wisdom about the 'primitiveness' or 'simplicity' of these societies. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes were both British anthropologists who worked primarily in Africa, and were key figures in the development of social anthropology in the 20th century. Their work helped establish anthropology as a discipline that values cultural diversity and seeks to understand non-Western societies on their own terms, rather than judging them by Western criteria. | |||
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes' African Political Systems was a major breakthrough in understanding the political structures of African societies. They pointed out that even traditional African societies are based on complex political systems that ensure their functioning and development. This approach challenged the prevailing assumptions of the time, which tended to view African societies as lacking sophisticated political structures. By focusing on how these societies regulate themselves, Evans-Pritchard and Fortes demonstrated that politics is an intrinsic and necessary element of any society, regardless of its complexity or level of technology. Their work has helped change the way anthropologists approach the study of non-Western societies, encouraging them to recognise and appreciate the complexity and diversity of these societies, rather than evaluating them according to Western standards and criteria. | |||
Evans-Pritchard | Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes set out to analyse the political systems of traditional societies while contextualising the concept of 'primitive'. Their work emphasised the importance of understanding the role of politics in these societies, rather than judging them through the prism of our own cultural and historical norms. They argued that in order to fully understand these societies, their complexity and specificity must be taken into account. This means recognising the political systems they have established and how these systems influence and are influenced by other aspects of their culture and history. In sum, their work has sought to rethink the concept of the 'primitive' and to highlight the crucial role of politics in the formation and maintenance of traditional societies. | ||
Evans-Pritchard | Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes emphasised the importance of contextualising the concept of 'primitive' when analysing the political systems of traditional societies. They have argued that beyond the specificities of each society, there are universalities in the way politics shapes these societies. Their work highlighted the role of social structures in the construction of social order, and argued that these structures are a universal feature of human societies. By focusing on specific societies, such as African tribes, they were able to examine closely the forms that these structures can take. This involved the study of families, siblings, tribal organisation and property systems, among other aspects of social life. By exploring these elements, they have been able to demonstrate that these societies are far from 'primitive', but are instead organised in complex social and political structures. | ||
Evans-Pritchard | Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes have argued that traditional societies are far from being devoid of structures, rites and rules. On the contrary, they are made up of complex political, social and economic systems that are essential for their functioning and development. They emphasised that these systems are not inferior or superior to those of Western societies, but simply different. These differences are due to specific historical, cultural and geographical contexts. Thus, they tried to demonstrate that all political systems, whether traditional or modern, must have certain essential elements to function effectively. These elements may include a form of governance, mechanisms for conflict resolution, social rituals, laws and rules, and means to ensure the economic well-being of society. | ||
Politics, in any society, encompasses a set of key functions that are essential to the successful organisation and functioning of the society. These functions may include: | |||
* | * Decision-making: In any society, decisions must be made to establish laws, set policies, manage resources, etc. The way in which these decisions are made may vary from society to society, but the decision-making process is a fundamental element of politics. | ||
* | * Action: Policy also involves action, i.e. the implementation of decisions taken. This can involve many processes, such as implementing policies, enforcing laws, providing public services, etc. | ||
* | * Strengthening: Policy also has a reinforcing role, consolidating existing structures of power and authority, and ensuring the stability of society. | ||
* | * Value creation: Policy can also be seen as a means of creating value for society, whether through economic policies, social programmes, cultural initiatives, etc. | ||
Thus, although societies differ in their specific forms of governance and political practices, it is possible to postulate that certain political structures and functions are universal, as they are essential for the survival and development of any society. | |||
== | == The 'rudiments' of Western political structures == | ||
E.E. Evans-Pritchard | E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes, in their anthropological analysis of African societies, identified four key structures within these societies. It is important to note that their work is situated in the context of Claude Lévi-Strauss' structural theory of kinship. According to Lévi-Strauss, kinship structures are fundamental to the constitution of society, as they provide a framework for social organisation and the distribution of roles and responsibilities. | ||
* | * Kinship: Kinship is one of the main structures of any society. It defines the relationships between members of a community and regulates their interactions. Kinship can include blood relationships, but also ties formed through marriage or adoption. | ||
* | * Power : Power is another essential structure of any society. It refers to the ability to control or influence the behaviour of others. Power can be held by individuals, groups or institutions and can be exercised in different ways, ranging from persuasion to coercion. | ||
* | * The symbolic: The symbolic is a key element of power. It refers to the symbols, rituals and beliefs that give meaning and legitimacy to power. Symbolic systems help to maintain social order by providing a common framework of understanding and interpretation. | ||
* | * The real: The real refers to the concrete action and decisions taken within the political system. It is the practical application of power and the implementation of political decisions. | ||
These four structures interact and reinforce each other to maintain social order and facilitate the functioning of society. | |||
Power and symbolism are closely related and mutually reinforcing. Power is often expressed through symbols, rituals and discourses, which contribute to its legitimacy and acceptance. In this sense, symbolism is an integral part of power, not a separate entity. Language, as a means of communication, plays a crucial role in the exercise of power. It is used to convey the norms, rules, values and expectations of society. It enables people to share information, negotiate power relations and challenge existing norms. Language is not only a means of communication, but also a tool of power and control. Rituals of social inversion, such as carnivals or New Year's Eve parties, are examples of how power and symbolism interact. These rituals temporarily invert social hierarchies and transgress norms, which can serve to underline and reinforce those same hierarchies and norms once the ritual is over. In conclusion, power and symbolism are inseparable in the analysis of social and political structures. They work together to create, maintain and transform social order. | |||
What are the basic structures that form the 'rudiments' of the more sophisticated structures of Western societies? | |||
=== | === Kinship in politics === | ||
In many African societies, kinship plays a crucial role in social and political organisation. The family bond is not only a biological bond, but also a social relationship with obligations and responsibilities. By belonging to a family, one is inserted into a larger social structure that largely determines one's status and role in society. In this context, family heritage - or dynasty - is of paramount importance. This implies that birth into a certain family may predestine a person to certain responsibilities, privileges or social positions. In other words, the family one is born into can largely determine the trajectory of one's life. The past also plays a significant role in these societies. Traditions, customs and family history are valued and can help guide current behaviour and decisions. Family history and lineage can be seen as a valuable resource that helps to construct individual and collective identity. In sum, kinship and family heritage are fundamental elements of social and political organisation in many African societies. | |||
In many traditional societies, social status and political position are intrinsically linked to kinship. Systems of kinship (i.e. the way in which kinship ties are traced) and residence (i.e. the habits of where married couples live) have a direct impact on the distribution of power. For example, in a society where kinship is patrilineal (kinship is traced through men) and residence is patrilocal (married couples live with or near the husband's family), power is usually held by the older men in the family or clan. In this context, power may be hereditary and passed from father to son. Beyond the mere determination of status, kinship also acts as an 'active heritage' or 'social capital'. It shapes the networks of social relations through which individuals navigate and negotiate their position in society. In other words, kinship is not simply a static condition of birth, but a dynamic set of relationships that influence social interactions and political decision-making. | |||
In many traditional societies, kinship, organised around clans or extended families, plays a crucial role in the exercise of political power. Members of a clan are often linked by kinship ties, whether real or assumed, and usually share a common sense of belonging and identity. These kinship ties can be used to consolidate and maintain power within a clan. For example, marital alliances can be used to strengthen ties between different clans, stabilise social relations and facilitate the transfer and sharing of resources. In addition, in some societies, rules of hereditary succession may be used to ensure that power remains within a particular clan or family. Conversely, kinship systems can also provide a platform for contesting and acquiring power. Members of a clan may mobilise around a particular candidate or political cause, using their collective strength to influence political decisions. Furthermore, in some circumstances, individuals or sub-groups may exploit ambiguities or contradictions within kinship rules to challenge the existing political order. For this reason, an understanding of kinship systems is often essential for understanding power dynamics in traditional societies. | |||
Evans-Pritchard | Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes have highlighted the importance of kinship networks in structuring political power in traditional societies. They argue that power is not simply determined by direct kinship, but is shaped by a wider network of kinship relationships, which may include marriage alliances, adoption ties, patronage relationships and other forms of symbolic kinship. This kinship network can become a major source of political influence and support. For example, marriage alliances can be used to establish links between different families or clans, creating a network of potential allies. Similarly, patronage relationships can be used to build loyalty and obedience to a political leader. In this context, politics is often a family affair in the broadest sense. Political decisions are made and implemented within this kinship network, and individuals navigate the political landscape based on their kinship ties. Thus, kinship is not just a matter of biology or direct descent, but is a complex social construct that plays a key role in the organisation of political power. | ||
Even in modern, complex societies, elements of clan dynamics can be identified. The Kennedy family in the United States is a striking example. The Kennedys, with their extensive influence in politics, business and philanthropy, have often been compared to a kind of modern 'clan'. Over several generations, various members of the Kennedy family have held important political positions, including the presidency of the United States with John F. Kennedy. Matrimonial alliances, the transmission of economic and cultural capital, and the common identification with the Kennedy 'brand' have all played a role in maintaining and extending their influence. Of course, there are important differences between a political family like the Kennedys and the clan structures seen in traditional societies. For example, in modern societies, ascension to positions of power is not usually strictly limited to a family line or network. However, the idea that kinship ties and extended family networks can play a significant role in politics is certainly applicable in many contexts, including modern, democratic societies. | |||
The case of Jean Sarkozy illustrates how family dynamics can influence politics even in modern democratic societies. In this case, Jean Sarkozy, the son of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, was offered a management position at EPAD (Établissement Public d'Aménagement de la Défense), an important institution in France, at a very young age. This episode has caused considerable controversy in France and has often been described as an example of nepotism, i.e. favouritism towards family members in the distribution of positions and responsibilities. It shows how kinship relations can potentially influence politics, even in a society that theoretically values equal opportunities and meritocracy. However, although such examples exist, they are often the exception rather than the rule in modern democracies. Democratic institutions are designed to promote fairness and open competition for positions of power, and there are often mechanisms to control and limit the influence of kinship relations. | |||
<youtube>Nd4cH5IwJvU</youtube> | <youtube>Nd4cH5IwJvU</youtube> | ||
=== | === Power as symbolic === | ||
Symbolism plays a crucial role in the functioning of power. Power is not limited to concrete actions, but also extends to the sphere of ideas, beliefs and symbols. These symbolic elements can be used to legitimise the power in place, to mobilise support and to define collective identity. Symbols can take many forms, from rituals and monuments to speeches and gestures. They can help create an image of power and convey specific messages to citizens. For example, a political leader may use symbols to project an image of strength, wisdom or compassion. Rituals are also important in this context. They can be used to mark important transitions, such as the inauguration of a new leader, or to celebrate historical events. They contribute to the construction of social order and the definition of roles and status within society. The symbolic, while supporting power, can also be a means of contestation. Symbols can be reinterpreted, misappropriated or rejected by those who seek to challenge or change the established order. | |||
[[Image:MossiCavalry.jpg|thumb|left| | [[Image:MossiCavalry.jpg|thumb|left|Mossi riders (engraving of 1890).]] | ||
Funeral rituals are of central importance in the transmission of power in many cultures, including that of the Mossi kingdom in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) in the 15th and 16th centuries. These rituals are both a time of mourning for the loss of the leader and a transition ceremony for the passing of power to the next generation. | |||
The death of the king is marked by strong symbols, such as the bursting of a drum and the extinction of the royal fire. These symbolic acts signify the end of one era and the need to move on to the next. It is a moment of collective mourning, but also a moment of important political transition. | |||
The responsibility of supervising the funeral rituals is entrusted to the eldest child of the king, whether son or daughter. This task is both an honour and an obligation, as it involves ensuring that the ritual is carried out correctly, according to the traditions and customs of the society. It is also an opportunity for the eldest child to show leadership and demonstrate his or her ability to assume the responsibilities of power. | |||
The napoco, as you explain, is a crucial phase of this ritual. The eldest daughter of the deceased king dons her father's clothes, symbolising the temporary passing of power and ensuring the continuity of kingship, despite the patrilineal nature of the succession. She becomes the 'Queen of the Departed' and is carried through the land, showing the people that there is no power vacuum. Then the new king is chosen and rides through the land on the horse of the former king, symbolising the reclaiming of power. But to emphasise the transition from the old to the new reign, an act of rupture is necessary: the horse of the old king is killed, marking the end of the previous era and the beginning of the new. Finally, the enthronement ceremony, the qurita, officially marks the inauguration of the new king. These rituals, though complex and rich in symbolism, clearly demonstrate how power is both continuous and discontinuous, linked to both the lineage and the individual person. It is an eloquent demonstration of how traditional societies manage the transition of power and maintain social and political stability. | |||
In many cultures and societies around the world, rituals play an essential role in ensuring a smooth and peaceful transition of power. These rituals have complex social, political and symbolic functions. In social terms, they serve to unify the community, reaffirm social norms and ensure continuity. Politically, they legitimise the new leader and help to maintain order and stability by avoiding potentially destructive power conflicts. In addition, they provide a framework for managing the change and uncertainty that can accompany a transition of power. On a symbolic level, power transition rituals emphasise the continuity between the old and new regimes, while marking the break necessary for the new beginning. They visually and physically represent the transition of power, helping the community to understand and accept the change. In sum, these power transition rituals, such as those you have described among the Mossi people, are an integral part of the management of the social and political order in many societies. | |||
=== | === Language as an element of political power === | ||
Power is inextricably linked to communication; indeed, whoever masters speech and communication holds de facto power. Moreover, whoever has the ability to speak has the potential to manipulate power dynamics by establishing order, inciting violence or promoting security. There is thus an undeniable continuity between power and the use of speech. | |||
Language plays a crucial role in the exercise of political power. Here are some of the many ways in which this happens: | |||
# Framing : | # Framing: The way questions are asked can influence the way people think about them. This is called 'framing'. For example, if a politician talks about a 'tax burden' rather than 'public investment', this can influence how people think about the issue of taxation. | ||
# | # Rhetoric: Politicians often use rhetoric to persuade people of their point of view. This can involve the use of metaphors, stories, emotions, repetition and other techniques to make their speeches more convincing. | ||
# | # Information control: Governments can use language to control the information that is disseminated to the public. This can range from direct censorship to spreading misinformation. | ||
# | # Creating identity: Language can be used to create collective identities. For example, the use of terms such as 'us' and 'them' can help to forge a sense of belonging to a group. | ||
# | # Legitimisation of power: Language can also be used to legitimise the exercise of power. For example, a leader may use language to explain why certain actions are necessary or why they are best placed to lead. | ||
Language is a powerful tool that can be used to influence, persuade and control in politics. | |||
To illustrate their point, Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes refer to the mythical figure of Legba, the god of communication in some African cultures. Legba, master of all languages, is able to interpret the speeches of all other deities. He is considered a messenger sent by God to communicate with men. A cult has developed around Legba, not only in traditional places of worship, but also in the home. His omnipresent presence means that he is supposed to have the means to control the whole society, helping and, if necessary, sanctioning individuals. He is often seen as the king's spokesman and has the ability to anger and punish. Each individual is therefore expected to live his or her life under the supervision of this god. | |||
This leads Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes to conclude that since the god holds the word, he also holds the power. Thus, language becomes a structuring knowledge. This is in line with Lévi-Strauss' view that language has the capacity to define the rules of social life and to express a truth that cannot be contested. In other words, the mastery of language is a means of controlling and shaping social reality, reflecting a form of power. | |||
In other words, language is not just a tool of power, it is the essence of power. If power loses control of language, it loses its ability to exist. In contemporary theories, the importance of language and words is particularly emphasised in describing social realities. They allow power to be staged, and the relationship to power to be constructed and formalised. In other words, language is not only a means of communicating power, but also of constructing, shaping and maintaining it. | |||
Modern theories of political anthropology are based on several fundamental principles: | |||
# | # Power cannot exist without language: Language is the tool through which power is expressed and understood. It gives form to authority, rules and norms, and helps to build and maintain power structures. | ||
# | # Power cannot exist without communication: Communication is essential for the transmission and reception of power. It enables the sharing of ideas, giving instructions, persuading and influencing, and building consensus. | ||
# | # Power cannot exist without ritual: Rituals are symbolic manifestations of power that reinforce existing structures and help maintain social order. They play an essential role in legitimising power and creating a sense of cohesion and belonging within a community or society. | ||
In other words, language, communication and ritual are all interconnected and play essential roles in the creation and maintenance of power in societies. | |||
The staging of power is central to its exercise and maintenance. This can take many forms, from public speeches to official ceremonies, rituals and symbols. The idea is to reinforce the authority and legitimacy of the ruling power, while shaping public opinion and guiding social behaviour. The dramatisation of power can be used to reinforce the authority of the leader, to create respect or fear, or to create a sense of unity or collective identity. It can also help to institutionalise power, by making it more tangible and placing it at the heart of everyday practices and rituals. In short, the staging of power is an effective way of communicating and consolidating authority, while influencing the perceptions and behaviours of individuals within society. | |||
Erving Goffman, | Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, developed the concept of 'theatricality' in social life through his idea of 'social dramaturgy'. According to him, social life is a series of performances, in which individuals play different roles depending on the situation and the audience. This also applies to power. Power is not simply an abstract entity, but is manifested through actions, speeches and symbols that are deliberately staged to reinforce the authority and legitimacy of power. It is a form of 'performance' which, like any other performance, requires some staging to be effective. This may involve public speeches, official ceremonies, rituals, symbols, insignia of power, etc. These elements contribute to the 'performance' of power and are essential to communicate the authority, legitimacy and identity of power to the audience - the public or citizens. Moreover, this staging of power also helps to institutionalise power, making it more tangible and inserting it into the everyday practices and rituals of society. In sum, power is not only exercised, it is also represented and performatively expressed. | ||
Dramatisation is a fundamental element of modern democracy. It plays a crucial role in the way power is expressed, perceived and understood. In a democracy, power is often expressed theatrically to communicate ideas, values and political positions to the public. For example, speeches by political leaders are often meticulously prepared and presented to maximise their impact and influence. Similarly, election campaigns, political debates, and even legislative sessions are often orchestrated with a certain amount of staging to highlight certain ideas or positions, or to influence public opinion. This does not necessarily mean that politics is insincere or superficial. On the contrary, dramatisation can be an effective way to communicate complex ideas and engage the public in political discussions. However, it is important to note that, like any tool, dramatisation can be used constructively or destructively, depending on the intention of those using it. Ultimately, theatrics is an inevitable part of modern democracy. It is both a reflection of our visual and mediated culture, and an essential means for political actors to communicate and interact with the public. | |||
=== | === Rituals of social inversion === | ||
Any society that seeks to maintain harmony and legitimise power must manage a complex tension. This tension is often described as 'centrifugal', i.e. it pushes outwards in some way, away from the centre. This tension can arise from different sources, such as social, political or economic conflicts, or differences of opinion and values within society. On the one hand, tension can be constructive: it can stimulate change, innovation and social progress. It can also serve to hold leaders accountable and encourage transparency and fairness. However, if not managed properly, this tension can become destructive. It can lead to social conflict, political instability and even violence. Moreover, excessive tension can weaken the legitimacy of the ruling power and undermine public trust in institutions. To manage this tension, societies often develop various mechanisms, such as conflict resolution systems, social reversal rituals, and mechanisms for participation and democratic dialogue. These mechanisms can help to channel the tension in a productive way and maintain a delicate balance between maintaining order and respecting diversity and individual freedom. | |||
Rituals of social inversion are one way in which societies manage this tension. These rituals temporarily reverse social roles and established norms, providing a safety valve for the tensions and frustrations that can build up in a hierarchical society. In such ceremonies, those who are normally in positions of power can be symbolically overthrown or ridiculed, while those who are usually submissive can be placed in positions of prestige and authority. These temporary reversals can help to relieve social tension, strengthen community solidarity and reaffirm existing social roles and norms. A classic example of a social inversion ritual is the carnival, a traditional celebration in many cultures where social norms and hierarchies are temporarily suspended or reversed. These events allow for a liberation from the usual social norms and can serve to critique, albeit symbolically, existing power structures. However, it is important to note that these rituals do not necessarily challenge power structures in the long term. After the ritual, roles and hierarchies are usually re-established, and power returns to normal. In this sense, reversal rituals can also serve to maintain the status quo by providing a temporary outlet for social tensions, without actually disrupting existing power structures. | |||
Social inversion rituals, such as carnival, provide a way to release tensions by temporarily reversing roles and social norms. In these contexts, behaviours that are normally unacceptable or taboo are not only permitted, but encouraged. This may include acts of mockery of authority figures, the expression of normally repressed feelings, and the violation of social taboos. These rituals serve several important functions. First, they allow for a release of the social and emotional tension that can build up in a society. Second, they can serve as a safety valve, allowing people to express their frustration and discontent in a controlled manner, which can prevent the escalation of conflicts. Thirdly, they can strengthen social solidarity by bringing people together in a moment of fun and shared camaraderie. Finally, by mocking authority figures and inverting social hierarchies, these rituals can also serve to criticise and challenge the powers that be. However, because they are temporary and framed by ritual norms, they can often be tolerated by the authorities without seriously threatening their power. Indeed, by allowing such rituals, the authorities may even strengthen their legitimacy, by showing that they are able to tolerate criticism and opposition. | |||
Rituals of social inversion, such as carnival, are usually controlled and limited in time. Although they allow for some freedom of expression and a temporary inversion of social norms, these rituals are usually carefully supervised to ensure that they do not degenerate into disorder or open revolt. Carnival, for example, takes place once a year, and its festivities are limited to a specific period. During this time, people are free to mock power, express feelings or behaviour that are normally repressed, and transgress social norms. However, once the carnival is over, the usual rules of conduct and respect for authority are re-established. In this way, power can tolerate, and even encourage, these inversion rituals, as they serve as a safety valve to release social tensions. At the same time, by limiting these rituals in time and by controlling them, power can ensure that they do not seriously threaten its authority or the stability of society. In other words, social inversion rituals are an integral part of the power strategy to manage and maintain social order. | |||
Rituals of social inversion, such as carnival, are a kind of social regulation mechanism within the wider structure of society. They allow for some form of symbolic disobedience or subversion of social norms, but within a controlled and temporary framework. These rituals provide a safety valve to release the social tensions and frustrations that can build up in society. They allow individuals to express feelings or behaviours that are usually repressed or disapproved of. At the same time, by being limited in time and space and often framed by specific rules, these rituals of social inversion do not pose a serious threat to the social order or power. By allowing these forms of symbolic disobedience, power can actually strengthen its position, by showing tolerance and allowing individuals to express their frustrations in a controlled way. In this way, rituals of social inversion can help to maintain stability and social order in the long term. | |||
The line between what constitutes a social inversion ritual and what does not can be difficult to draw. It depends largely on the specific cultural and social context. In social inversion rituals, usual roles and hierarchies are temporarily reversed or disrupted, allowing those who are usually in subordinate positions to assume roles of power, and vice versa. However, as you have pointed out, these reversals are usually strictly controlled and temporary, with the clear expectation that the normal social order will be restored at the end of the ritual. The paradox is that, although they appear subversive on the surface, social inversion rituals can actually reinforce the status quo. By allowing a certain amount of controlled transgression, they can help to relieve social tensions and reinforce the acceptance of existing roles and hierarchies. They can also help to emphasise and reinforce the importance of social norms and roles that are temporarily suspended or reversed. In other words, although they may appear to destabilise the social order, social inversion rituals can actually contribute to its preservation and perpetuation. | |||
Social inversion rituals such as carnival or political satire can be based on several principles, including those you mentioned: | |||
# | # Acceptance of mockery: In these rituals, the established power must tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, a certain amount of irreverence and mockery. This period of release may allow people to express frustrations or criticisms that would otherwise be repressed. | ||
# | # Strengthening social bonds: Paradoxically, this period of disorder can actually strengthen social bonds. By allowing a controlled expression of dissent and providing a temporary escape from the constraints of everyday life, these rituals can relieve tensions and strengthen social cohesion. | ||
These principles suggest that social inversion rituals are not simply moments of chaos and transgression, but also play an important role in maintaining social order and strengthening community solidarity. | |||
= Pour une anthropologie politique de la modernité = | = Pour une anthropologie politique de la modernité = |
Version du 17 mai 2023 à 18:26
L’Homme de Vitruve par Léonard de Vinci.
Faculté | Faculté des sciences de la société |
---|---|
Département | Département de science politique et relations internationales |
Professeur(s) | Rémi Baudoui |
Cours | Introduction to Political Science |
Lectures
- From Durkheim to Bourdieu
- The origins of the fall of the Weimar Republic
- Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto
- The notion of "concept" in social sciences
- Marxism and Structuralism
- Functionalism and Systemism
- Interactionism and Constructivism
- Interests
- The institutions
- Ideas
- Les théories de l’anthropologie politique
- What is War?
- The War: Concepts and Evolutions
- The reason of State
- State, sovereignty, globalization and multi-level governance
- What is Violence?
- Welfare State and Biopower
- Political regimes and democratisation
- Electoral systems
- Governments and Parliaments
- Morphology of contestations
- Régimes politiques, démocratisation
- Action in Political Theory
- Introduction to Swiss politics
- Introduction to political behaviour
- Public Policy Analysis: Definition and cycle of public policy
- Public Policy Analysis: agenda setting and formulation
- Public Policy Analysis: Implementation and Evaluation
- Introduction to the sub-discipline of international relations
- Introduction to Political Theory
Political science and anthropology have long been intimately linked, sharing a common interest in the study of human societies and their organisations. It is particularly interesting to study the influence of Africanist anthropology on political science, as it offers unique perspectives on political dynamics.
Africanist anthropology refers to the study of African cultures and African societies. It has played an important role in the evolution of political science by offering a new perspective on political processes. Africanist anthropologists have often emphasised the importance of social structures and belief systems in the formation of political systems. For example, they have studied forms of leadership, the role of elders and chiefs, ritual practices, norms of reciprocity and cooperation, and local governance systems. These studies have provided elements for analysis and reflection on politics in each African society. Anthropologists have also helped to refute some Western preconceptions about Africa, for example by showing that African societies have their own sophisticated forms of governance and politics, which are often very different from those of Western societies.
The lessons learned from Africanist anthropology can be applied to the analysis of our societies today. They remind us of the importance of considering social structures, belief systems and cultural practices in political analysis. They also highlight the importance of cultural and political diversity. African societies, like all societies, are diverse and dynamic, and their political systems reflect this diversity. Thus, an approach that takes this diversity into account can enrich our understanding of politics. Furthermore, Africanist anthropology reminds us that politics is not limited to formal institutions, but also includes informal processes, power relations and everyday practices. Finally, Africanist anthropology emphasises the importance of local context and local knowledge in political analysis. Effective policy solutions cannot be imposed from above or imported from elsewhere without taking into account the local context. Africanist anthropology has much to offer political science, not only in terms of understanding African societies, but also in terms of approaches and perspectives that can be applied to the analysis of all societies.
Anthropology was first conceptualised as a discipline focusing on the study of 'primitive' societies, often located outside the West. These societies, perceived as less complex or less developed, were studied in order to understand essential aspects of human nature and society. However, anthropology has gradually broadened its scope to include the study of modern, industrialised societies. This development is often described as a movement towards an 'anthropology of modernity'. In this process, the tools, knowledge and analyses that were developed for the study of early societies have proved valuable for the analysis of modern societies. For example, the anthropological concepts of culture, social structure, ritual, and symbolism are just as relevant to the analysis of modern societies as they were to early societies. Similarly, the methods of participant observation and ethnographic study are now commonly used in the study of modern societies. Moreover, the anthropological view of politics, which focuses on social processes, power relations and everyday practices, offers a valuable perspective on modern societies. For example, it can help us understand how power structures are maintained and contested, how collective identities are constructed and negotiated, and how norms and values influence politics. Finally, anthropology reminds us of the importance of cultural diversity and social complexity, even within modern societies. Modern societies are not monolithic, but are composed of multiple groups and subcultures, each with its own belief systems, values and practices. Understanding this diversity is essential for understanding politics in modern societies.
Structuralism is a major concept in anthropology, including political anthropology. It was popularised by thinkers such as Claude Lévi-Strauss and postulates that there are underlying structures that organise social, cultural and political life. These structures are usually invisible to the naked eye, but they can be detected through a careful analysis of myths, rituals, customs and other cultural practices. Africanist anthropology has largely adopted the structuralist approach to analysing African societies. For example, it has examined kinship structures, religious belief systems, rituals and forms of governance to understand how they organise political life. This approach has highlighted the importance of social and cultural structures in the formation of African political systems. When structuralism is applied to the analysis of our own modern societies, it is assumed that there is a 'structure effect'. This means that, despite apparent changes, certain underlying structures remain constant and continue to influence politics. For example, family structure, gender norms, social class, ethnicity, and other social structures can play a major role in politics. These structures can influence who has power, how power is exercised, and what political issues are considered important. In addition, ideological structures, such as belief systems and values, can also influence politics. For example, ideas about democracy, freedom, equality, and other values can influence how people think about politics and how they act politically.
Although our modern societies are different from the societies studied by Africanist anthropologists, the structuralist approach still offers valuable tools for understanding politics. By focusing on underlying structures, it allows us to understand continuities as well as changes in political life.
At the origins of anthropological thought
The shift to a political anthropology - or any form of anthropology, for that matter - implies a recognition of the Other as a subject. It is about recognising that the individuals and social groups we study are agents in their own right, with their own perspective, their own lived experience and their own capacity to act and influence the world around them.
This recognition is rooted in the ethics of anthropology, which emphasises the importance of respecting the dignity and autonomy of the people we study. It is also essential to anthropological methodology, which often involves long-term immersion in the society under study, participant observation and in-depth interviews. Recognising the Other as a subject also means acknowledging the validity of their perspectives, beliefs and practices, even if they differ from those of the anthropologist. It means avoiding ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to judge other cultures by one's own culture.
The recognition of the Other as a subject is indeed a long process. It is not only an intellectual process, but also an emotional and ethical one. It may involve questioning one's own prejudices, confronting sometimes disconcerting cultural differences, and learning to listen to and understand the perspectives of others.
Once this recognition is established, it becomes the basis for a political anthropology that takes seriously people's perspectives, experiences and actions in the political arena. It allows politics to be analysed not only in terms of structures and processes, but also in terms of lived experiences, meanings and power relations. Ultimately, this recognition of the Other as a subject enriches our understanding of politics and helps us to develop a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis.
The Birth of Otherness
Otherness is a key concept in anthropology and the social sciences in general. It refers to the recognition and acceptance of the Other in his/her difference. This recognition implies not only tolerating difference, but also valuing and respecting it.
Otherness is at the heart of our democracies. It is fundamental to pluralism, which is the idea that diversity of opinions, beliefs, cultures and ways of life is not only tolerated but also valued. It is also fundamental to equality, which is the principle that all people should be treated fairly and have the same rights, regardless of their differences.
Otherness is also an essential value of secularism. Secularism is the principle of separation of state and religion, which allows all religions to coexist peacefully and guarantees freedom of conscience for all citizens. Secularism favours the blending of cultures as a source of enrichment and peace, and this requires the recognition and acceptance of otherness.
Finally, otherness is an ethically fundamental value. It reminds us of our responsibility towards the Other and encourages us to respect and value difference. It also reminds us of the importance of openness, empathy and mutual understanding in our relationships with others.
In sum, otherness is not only a key concept in anthropology and the social sciences, but also a fundamental value of our democratic and secular societies. It reminds us of the importance of difference and diversity, and encourages us to value and respect the Other in his/her difference.
The concept of otherness plays an essential role in promoting equality and cultural diversity in our contemporary societies. It invites us to recognise, respect and celebrate differences between cultures, as well as between men and women, and to see them as a source of richness rather than as an obstacle.
Otherness encourages us to see all cultures as equal, each with its own value and dignity. Rather than ranking cultures according to ethnocentric criteria, otherness invites us to appreciate cultural diversity and to see it as a source of mutual enrichment. It also invites us to be open to and learn from other cultures, while respecting their autonomy and integrity. Otherness also applies to gender differences. It invites us to recognise and respect the difference between men and women, while promoting gender equality. It invites us to value the diversity of gender experiences and to fight against gender stereotypes and discrimination.
In this perspective, difference is not seen as a source of conflict or division, but as a source of enrichment and creativity. It is seen as an opportunity to learn, grow and develop. This positive approach to difference, based on respect for otherness, is essential for building more inclusive, egalitarian and peaceful societies.
The concept of otherness did not emerge overnight, but is the result of a long historical and socio-cultural process. As you suggest, in early societies, identity might have been defined more by similarity than by difference. Over time, as societies diversified and interactions between different groups increased, the concept of otherness began to emerge. People began to define themselves not only in relation to those who are like them, but also in relation to those who are different from them.
In Western societies, the acceptance of otherness required the deconstruction of many preconceptions, including ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to see the world only from the point of view of one's own culture and to judge other cultures according to one's own standards. This deconstruction has been a long and complex process, involving intellectual debates, political struggles and social changes. The recognition of otherness ultimately involves recognising the Other as an individual, with his or her own identity, experiences and perspective. It implies seeing him or her not simply as a representative of a culture or a group, but as a unique and irreplaceable person. It is a process that requires both openness and the ability to put oneself in the other's shoes. In sum, the construction of otherness is a complex process that requires both a deconstruction of ethnocentric prejudices and a recognition of the Other as an individual. It is a process that is still ongoing and continues to evolve in our contemporary societies.
Scholarly travel and evolutionary anthropology
Scholarly travel in the eighteenth century
Eighteenth-century scholarly travel played a crucial role in shaping European thinking about otherness. During this period, many explorers, naturalists and philosophers travelled the world, discovering new lands, new cultures and new ways of life. These voyages opened up new perspectives and challenged the preconceptions of the time.
The discovery of the New World and its indigenous peoples was a key moment in this development. Europeans were confronted with cultures that were radically different from their own, with their own belief systems, social structures and ways of life. These encounters challenged the ethnocentric notion that European culture was superior or 'normal'. However, these encounters were not symmetrical. Europeans often imposed their culture and value system on the peoples they encountered, sometimes by force. The indigenous peoples of America, for example, suffered massive violence, forced displacement and disease brought by Europeans, resulting in a tragic loss of life and culture. It is therefore important to note that the encounter with otherness during the scholarly voyages of the eighteenth century took place in the context of European colonialism. Although these voyages helped to challenge ethnocentrism and pave the way for a recognition of otherness, they were also associated with colonial violence and oppression.
Eighteenth-century scholarly travel played a complex role in shaping European thinking about otherness. They opened up new perspectives and challenged preconceptions, but they were also associated with colonial violence and oppression.
Evolutionary anthropology
Eighteenth-century voyages of discovery and exploration raised fundamental questions about humanity and otherness. Confronted with radically different cultures and peoples, Europeans wondered about the nature of these 'Others' and their place in the world.
A central question was whether the indigenous peoples they encountered were truly human in the European sense. The Europeans wondered whether these people had souls, were capable of reasoning, had morals, etc. Some even suggested that the indigenous people were not human at all. Some even suggested that their 'primitive' state might be a divine punishment. The answer to these questions was often negative. Many Europeans considered these peoples to be inferior, incapable of civilisation or morality, and therefore could not be considered fully human. This denial of otherness was used to justify colonial domination and exploitation.
These ideas had a profound impact on the way Europeans perceived the Other and on the way they perceived themselves. They reinforced the idea of a racial and cultural hierarchy, with Europeans at the top and 'savages' at the bottom. They also contributed to a fundamentally ethnocentric worldview, in which difference was seen as a threat or aberration rather than a source of diversity and richness. It is therefore crucial to recognise that, although voyages of discovery have opened up new perspectives and challenged preconceptions, they have also contributed to reinforcing damaging ideas about otherness and humanity.
The perception of otherness during the era of discovery and colonisation was strongly influenced by an ethnocentric worldview. Europeans often categorised non-European cultures as 'savage' or 'primitive', bringing them closer to animality than to what they considered civilised humanity. This dehumanisation was used to justify the domination and colonisation of indigenous peoples. By viewing them as inferior, less evolved or less human, Europeans gave themselves the right to rule them, convert them to their own religious and cultural beliefs, exploit them for their labour and appropriate their lands. This perception of otherness as animality has had lasting and damaging consequences, contributing to centuries of discrimination, exploitation and violence against indigenous peoples. It has also reinforced a European-centred worldview, in which other cultures are judged by European standards and often considered inferior or deviant.
The Valladolid controversy of 1550-1551, where Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda debated the status of the indigenous people of the New World, is a perfect example of the conflicting perspectives on otherness at that time. Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican priest, argued for the recognition of the humanity and rights of the natives. For him, these peoples, although living in a state of nature, have a soul and are capable of morality and rationality. They are 'good' in the sense that they live in harmony with nature and have remained true to their original state of purity. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, on the other hand, argued that the indigenous people were inferior and that they were closer to animals than to human beings. In his view, they were 'bad' because they were unable to rise above their primitive condition and needed to be civilised by Europeans. This debate reflects a fundamental tension in European philosophy at the time, between a view of the state of nature as a state of purity and wisdom and a view of it as a state of barbarism and ignorance. This tension shaped European perceptions of otherness and had a significant impact on European colonial policies. It is important to note that, although Las Casas advocated for the recognition of indigenous rights, his vision was still very paternalistic. He saw the natives as innocent children who needed the protection and education of Europeans. Thus, even in this more 'benevolent' perspective, otherness was still perceived as a form of inferiority that justified some form of domination.
The question of the state of nature, and in particular the interpretation of this state, has been a central issue in classical Western political philosophy. This interpretation has often been characterised by a dualistic view, opposing two conceptions of the state of nature: wisdom on the one hand and barbarism on the other. On the one hand, some thinkers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argued that the state of nature was a state of purity and innocence, where man lived in harmony with his environment. According to this perspective, civilisation, with its social and political institutions, corrupts man and takes him away from his natural state of freedom and equality. On the other hand, other philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, have argued that the state of nature was a state of 'war of all against all', where life was 'solitary, poor, unpleasant, brutish and short'. For Hobbes, civilisation, through the social contract and the establishment of a ruler, was a necessary response to this brutal and chaotic condition. These two visions have had a great influence on the way society and politics have been conceptualised. They reflect deep-rooted ideas about human nature and the optimal conditions for social and political organisation. These ideas continue to influence our contemporary thinking about politics, society and individuality.
In their respective works, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes offer two very different views of man in the state of nature, which have had a profound influence on political thought. Thomas Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan", describes man in the state of nature as living in a state of constant fear and violence, "the war of all against all". For Hobbes, man is fundamentally selfish and motivated by his own interests. It was this view that led him to propose the idea of a social contract, where individuals agree to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the protection and security offered by an absolute ruler. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, offers a more optimistic view of man in the state of nature. According to him, man is basically good and lives in harmony with his environment. It is society, with its inequalities and corrupt institutions, that corrupts man. For Rousseau, the social contract should serve to preserve as much of man's natural freedom and equality as possible, while allowing for peaceful coexistence.
These contrasting views of man in the state of nature have also influenced the way philosophers and political thinkers have perceived and interpreted otherness. For example, in the Hobbesian view, 'savage' or 'primitive' peoples could be seen as living in a violent and chaotic state of nature, thus justifying their domination and 'civilisation' by more 'advanced' societies. On the other hand, from the Rousseauist perspective, these same peoples could be seen as living in harmony with their environment and as being corrupted by the influence of civilisation. These opposing views have had an important influence on the way Western societies have interacted with other cultures and have helped shape enduring attitudes towards otherness.
The distinction between humans and animals has been a central issue in philosophy since antiquity. Aristotle, for example, defined man as a "rational animal", suggesting that the ability to think, reason and use language is what fundamentally distinguishes humans from other animals. In the context of colonisation and exploration of the 'New World', this definition was used to justify the treatment of indigenous peoples as 'inferior'. By categorising them as closer to animality than to humanity, the colonisers were able to justify their domination and exploitation. If these 'savage' peoples were seen as incapable of thinking or reasoning in the same way as Europeans, then it was 'necessary', according to this logic, that Europeans think and act for them. This is an example of how philosophical ideas can be used to justify political and social actions, even when they are based on prejudice or misunderstanding. It is also a reminder of the importance of challenging these ideas and recognising the richness and complexity of different human cultures and societies.
The 18th century: the invention of the concept of man
The 18th century, often referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, was a period of profound questioning of the traditional view of the world and man's place in it. During this period, many philosophers and thinkers began to develop more enlightened and humanistic views of man and society.
However, even during the Enlightenment, the view of non-European peoples was often biased and prejudiced. These prejudices were partly based on ideas about civilisation and barbarism, rationality and irrationality, which were common at the time.
Columbus reported "Because I see and know that these people are not of any sect, nor idolatrous, but very gentle and ignorant of what is evil, that they do not know how to kill each other, nor imprison each other, that they are unarmed and so fearful that one of us is enough to make a hundred of them run away, even by playing with them [...] I do not believe that there is a better man in the world than there is a better land"[1]. This quote from Christopher Columbus illustrates the point well. In this quote, Columbus describes the indigenous peoples he encountered as 'gentle and ignorant of evil'. This description, while potentially well-intentioned, is nevertheless patronising and paternalistic. It suggests that indigenous peoples are naïve and incapable of defending themselves, and therefore need the 'protection' of Europeans. This biased view of non-European peoples has been used to justify many injustices, including colonisation and exploitation. This is why it is important to challenge these preconceptions and recognise the richness and complexity of different human cultures and societies.
The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the emergence of what we now consider to be self-awareness and the notion of individuality. It was during this period, often referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, that philosophers like René Descartes began to question the nature of identity and consciousness. Descartes, for example, formulated his famous phrase "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), which has become a fundamental pillar of Western philosophy. This phrase expresses the idea that the very fact of thinking proves the existence of the individual. The Enlightenment also saw the emergence of new ideas about individual rights and freedom. Philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on the social contract and the natural rights of man, which have had a major influence on the formation of modern democratic societies. However, it is important to note that these new ideas about individuality and human rights were often not extended to non-European peoples. The concept of otherness was often misunderstood or ignored, which led to the marginalisation and exploitation of these peoples. This is an aspect of the history of Western thought that needs to be recognised and criticised.
This awareness challenges the divine influence on man, and the individual begins to manifest itself as an entity of its own. The existence of the individual is then defined by his ability to think and by his consciousness - therefore, the individual is a thinking being.
From the 18th century onwards, this new conception of man began to liberate the intelligence of individuals and allowed them to see otherness in a new light. The other is no longer necessarily perceived as a 'savage', but rather as a being inscribed in a specific historical situation. However, negative connotations persist, in particular the idea that this other was not capable of developing by himself. These questions reflect a change in our way of thinking: man exists not only through his capacity to think, but also through his learning and cognitive knowledge of the world. Experience is accumulated and passed on, helping to shape our understanding of ourselves and others. We begin to move away from the image of the 'savage'. The other is seen as different, and the notion of the 'savage' begins to be externalised. As a result, the question of difference begins to be asked, but it is a value judgment that is not necessarily moral.
In the eighteenth century, the great objective of society is to build a positive knowledge of man. Man was studied as such, potentially as a thinking being, and as an integral element of human history. This analysis is carried out in particular through travel, which offers new perspectives and opportunities to observe and understand humanity in all its diversity.
19th century evolutionary anthropology
In the 19th century, we witness a new phase of desire to better understand the other, with a more positive approach. This was done through various journeys and study missions, which gave rise to a first form of modern anthropology focused on primitive societies, which had their own social structures. However, certain strongly reactionary elements persist, referring us to a positivist science. This approach considers that we are in evolving societies, which need to be creative to remain competitive. It suggests a linear view of social and cultural development, where some societies are seen as 'backward' compared to others, based on Western criteria.
In the nineteenth century, although we are beginning to move away from certain caricatures, dangerous ideas persist, including racist and racialist principles. For example, it is impossible to fully understand the existence of the Nazi extermination camps without taking into account that this period was strongly influenced by a supremacist ideology of the 'white race' to the detriment of other ethnic groups. These ideas, embedded in the thinking of the time, contributed to acts of extreme violence and inhumanity.
Evolutionary anthropology, which prevailed in the 19th century, retained traces of these prejudices. According to this perspective, the evolution of societies is seen in a hierarchical manner, with an implicit superiority given to white Western societies. This view helped to justify the colonisation and exploitation of other peoples and cultures as 'inferior' or 'less advanced'. Understanding these ancient perspectives is essential to understanding contemporary challenges of discrimination, racism and inequality.
Although nineteenth-century evolutionary anthropology was still marked by hierarchical and ethnocentric conceptions, it nevertheless represented an important step towards the recognition of otherness. For the first time, interest was shown in other societies not only as objects of observation, but also as subjects worthy of study and understanding. It was during this period that anthropologists began to systematically collect information about different cultures around the world, and to analyse this data with the aim of understanding different ways of life, belief systems, social structures and cultural practices. Although this approach was still far from free of bias, it paved the way for more in-depth and respectful studies of non-Western cultures in the 20th century. It laid the foundations for a true recognition of otherness, where difference is seen not as inferiority, but as a richness and a source of mutual learning.
The Berlin Conference of 1885, also known as the 'Partition of Africa', marked a significant turning point in the colonisation movement. The great European powers, in delimiting their zones of influence on the African continent, established colonial regimes that had profound and lasting consequences on African societies. It is in this context that numerous scientific and archaeological missions were launched, with the aim of studying the cultures, languages, social systems and traditions of the colonised peoples. It is important to note that these efforts were often motivated by a desire to justify and consolidate colonial power, but they also resulted in the collection of valuable information about African societies. Despite their colonialist context, these missions played an essential role in revealing the complexity and richness of African cultures. They have allowed for in-depth study of these societies, an understanding of their social and political structures, and an appreciation of the diversity of lifestyles and cultural practices on the African continent. This has contributed to a greater recognition of otherness and has paved the way for a more respectful and balanced anthropology that seeks to understand other cultures on their own terms, rather than judging them according to Western standards and values.
Although the anthropology of this period was still heavily influenced by the idea of developmental hierarchies between societies - an idea that was often used to justify colonial rule - it began to pave the way for a more genuine and respectful recognition of otherness. This meant that scholars began to accept and value other cultures not for their resemblance or conformity to Western norms, but for what they are in themselves. This approach highlighted the diversity and richness of human cultures, and showed that each society has its own logic, its own values and its own ways of structuring social and political life. Thus, despite its limitations and biases, nineteenth-century anthropology laid the foundations for a more balanced and respectful approach to otherness, which has become a central principle of contemporary anthropology. However, it is important to note that this was a long and difficult process, and that the struggle against prejudice and stereotypes is still relevant in anthropological research and in intercultural relations more broadly.
The contributions of Amerindian and Africanist anthropology
Africanist anthropology and the discovery of systems of political organisation
[File:Evans Pritchard (1902–1973).jpeg|thumb|E. E. Evans-Pritchard.
The book "African Political Systems" published by Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes in 1940 was an important contribution to political anthropology. It was one of the first books that really emphasised the importance of understanding the political systems of non-Western societies on their own terms, rather than judging them by Western criteria. The book brought together eight case studies of different African societies, ranging from centralised chieftaincy systems to stateless societies organised around complex systems of kinship and reciprocal relations. These studies highlighted the diversity and complexity of political organisation in Africa, and challenged conventional wisdom about the 'primitiveness' or 'simplicity' of these societies. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes were both British anthropologists who worked primarily in Africa, and were key figures in the development of social anthropology in the 20th century. Their work helped establish anthropology as a discipline that values cultural diversity and seeks to understand non-Western societies on their own terms, rather than judging them by Western criteria.
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes' African Political Systems was a major breakthrough in understanding the political structures of African societies. They pointed out that even traditional African societies are based on complex political systems that ensure their functioning and development. This approach challenged the prevailing assumptions of the time, which tended to view African societies as lacking sophisticated political structures. By focusing on how these societies regulate themselves, Evans-Pritchard and Fortes demonstrated that politics is an intrinsic and necessary element of any society, regardless of its complexity or level of technology. Their work has helped change the way anthropologists approach the study of non-Western societies, encouraging them to recognise and appreciate the complexity and diversity of these societies, rather than evaluating them according to Western standards and criteria.
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes set out to analyse the political systems of traditional societies while contextualising the concept of 'primitive'. Their work emphasised the importance of understanding the role of politics in these societies, rather than judging them through the prism of our own cultural and historical norms. They argued that in order to fully understand these societies, their complexity and specificity must be taken into account. This means recognising the political systems they have established and how these systems influence and are influenced by other aspects of their culture and history. In sum, their work has sought to rethink the concept of the 'primitive' and to highlight the crucial role of politics in the formation and maintenance of traditional societies.
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes emphasised the importance of contextualising the concept of 'primitive' when analysing the political systems of traditional societies. They have argued that beyond the specificities of each society, there are universalities in the way politics shapes these societies. Their work highlighted the role of social structures in the construction of social order, and argued that these structures are a universal feature of human societies. By focusing on specific societies, such as African tribes, they were able to examine closely the forms that these structures can take. This involved the study of families, siblings, tribal organisation and property systems, among other aspects of social life. By exploring these elements, they have been able to demonstrate that these societies are far from 'primitive', but are instead organised in complex social and political structures.
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes have argued that traditional societies are far from being devoid of structures, rites and rules. On the contrary, they are made up of complex political, social and economic systems that are essential for their functioning and development. They emphasised that these systems are not inferior or superior to those of Western societies, but simply different. These differences are due to specific historical, cultural and geographical contexts. Thus, they tried to demonstrate that all political systems, whether traditional or modern, must have certain essential elements to function effectively. These elements may include a form of governance, mechanisms for conflict resolution, social rituals, laws and rules, and means to ensure the economic well-being of society.
Politics, in any society, encompasses a set of key functions that are essential to the successful organisation and functioning of the society. These functions may include:
- Decision-making: In any society, decisions must be made to establish laws, set policies, manage resources, etc. The way in which these decisions are made may vary from society to society, but the decision-making process is a fundamental element of politics.
- Action: Policy also involves action, i.e. the implementation of decisions taken. This can involve many processes, such as implementing policies, enforcing laws, providing public services, etc.
- Strengthening: Policy also has a reinforcing role, consolidating existing structures of power and authority, and ensuring the stability of society.
- Value creation: Policy can also be seen as a means of creating value for society, whether through economic policies, social programmes, cultural initiatives, etc.
Thus, although societies differ in their specific forms of governance and political practices, it is possible to postulate that certain political structures and functions are universal, as they are essential for the survival and development of any society.
The 'rudiments' of Western political structures
E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes, in their anthropological analysis of African societies, identified four key structures within these societies. It is important to note that their work is situated in the context of Claude Lévi-Strauss' structural theory of kinship. According to Lévi-Strauss, kinship structures are fundamental to the constitution of society, as they provide a framework for social organisation and the distribution of roles and responsibilities.
- Kinship: Kinship is one of the main structures of any society. It defines the relationships between members of a community and regulates their interactions. Kinship can include blood relationships, but also ties formed through marriage or adoption.
- Power : Power is another essential structure of any society. It refers to the ability to control or influence the behaviour of others. Power can be held by individuals, groups or institutions and can be exercised in different ways, ranging from persuasion to coercion.
- The symbolic: The symbolic is a key element of power. It refers to the symbols, rituals and beliefs that give meaning and legitimacy to power. Symbolic systems help to maintain social order by providing a common framework of understanding and interpretation.
- The real: The real refers to the concrete action and decisions taken within the political system. It is the practical application of power and the implementation of political decisions.
These four structures interact and reinforce each other to maintain social order and facilitate the functioning of society.
Power and symbolism are closely related and mutually reinforcing. Power is often expressed through symbols, rituals and discourses, which contribute to its legitimacy and acceptance. In this sense, symbolism is an integral part of power, not a separate entity. Language, as a means of communication, plays a crucial role in the exercise of power. It is used to convey the norms, rules, values and expectations of society. It enables people to share information, negotiate power relations and challenge existing norms. Language is not only a means of communication, but also a tool of power and control. Rituals of social inversion, such as carnivals or New Year's Eve parties, are examples of how power and symbolism interact. These rituals temporarily invert social hierarchies and transgress norms, which can serve to underline and reinforce those same hierarchies and norms once the ritual is over. In conclusion, power and symbolism are inseparable in the analysis of social and political structures. They work together to create, maintain and transform social order.
What are the basic structures that form the 'rudiments' of the more sophisticated structures of Western societies?
Kinship in politics
In many African societies, kinship plays a crucial role in social and political organisation. The family bond is not only a biological bond, but also a social relationship with obligations and responsibilities. By belonging to a family, one is inserted into a larger social structure that largely determines one's status and role in society. In this context, family heritage - or dynasty - is of paramount importance. This implies that birth into a certain family may predestine a person to certain responsibilities, privileges or social positions. In other words, the family one is born into can largely determine the trajectory of one's life. The past also plays a significant role in these societies. Traditions, customs and family history are valued and can help guide current behaviour and decisions. Family history and lineage can be seen as a valuable resource that helps to construct individual and collective identity. In sum, kinship and family heritage are fundamental elements of social and political organisation in many African societies.
In many traditional societies, social status and political position are intrinsically linked to kinship. Systems of kinship (i.e. the way in which kinship ties are traced) and residence (i.e. the habits of where married couples live) have a direct impact on the distribution of power. For example, in a society where kinship is patrilineal (kinship is traced through men) and residence is patrilocal (married couples live with or near the husband's family), power is usually held by the older men in the family or clan. In this context, power may be hereditary and passed from father to son. Beyond the mere determination of status, kinship also acts as an 'active heritage' or 'social capital'. It shapes the networks of social relations through which individuals navigate and negotiate their position in society. In other words, kinship is not simply a static condition of birth, but a dynamic set of relationships that influence social interactions and political decision-making.
In many traditional societies, kinship, organised around clans or extended families, plays a crucial role in the exercise of political power. Members of a clan are often linked by kinship ties, whether real or assumed, and usually share a common sense of belonging and identity. These kinship ties can be used to consolidate and maintain power within a clan. For example, marital alliances can be used to strengthen ties between different clans, stabilise social relations and facilitate the transfer and sharing of resources. In addition, in some societies, rules of hereditary succession may be used to ensure that power remains within a particular clan or family. Conversely, kinship systems can also provide a platform for contesting and acquiring power. Members of a clan may mobilise around a particular candidate or political cause, using their collective strength to influence political decisions. Furthermore, in some circumstances, individuals or sub-groups may exploit ambiguities or contradictions within kinship rules to challenge the existing political order. For this reason, an understanding of kinship systems is often essential for understanding power dynamics in traditional societies.
Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes have highlighted the importance of kinship networks in structuring political power in traditional societies. They argue that power is not simply determined by direct kinship, but is shaped by a wider network of kinship relationships, which may include marriage alliances, adoption ties, patronage relationships and other forms of symbolic kinship. This kinship network can become a major source of political influence and support. For example, marriage alliances can be used to establish links between different families or clans, creating a network of potential allies. Similarly, patronage relationships can be used to build loyalty and obedience to a political leader. In this context, politics is often a family affair in the broadest sense. Political decisions are made and implemented within this kinship network, and individuals navigate the political landscape based on their kinship ties. Thus, kinship is not just a matter of biology or direct descent, but is a complex social construct that plays a key role in the organisation of political power.
Even in modern, complex societies, elements of clan dynamics can be identified. The Kennedy family in the United States is a striking example. The Kennedys, with their extensive influence in politics, business and philanthropy, have often been compared to a kind of modern 'clan'. Over several generations, various members of the Kennedy family have held important political positions, including the presidency of the United States with John F. Kennedy. Matrimonial alliances, the transmission of economic and cultural capital, and the common identification with the Kennedy 'brand' have all played a role in maintaining and extending their influence. Of course, there are important differences between a political family like the Kennedys and the clan structures seen in traditional societies. For example, in modern societies, ascension to positions of power is not usually strictly limited to a family line or network. However, the idea that kinship ties and extended family networks can play a significant role in politics is certainly applicable in many contexts, including modern, democratic societies.
The case of Jean Sarkozy illustrates how family dynamics can influence politics even in modern democratic societies. In this case, Jean Sarkozy, the son of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, was offered a management position at EPAD (Établissement Public d'Aménagement de la Défense), an important institution in France, at a very young age. This episode has caused considerable controversy in France and has often been described as an example of nepotism, i.e. favouritism towards family members in the distribution of positions and responsibilities. It shows how kinship relations can potentially influence politics, even in a society that theoretically values equal opportunities and meritocracy. However, although such examples exist, they are often the exception rather than the rule in modern democracies. Democratic institutions are designed to promote fairness and open competition for positions of power, and there are often mechanisms to control and limit the influence of kinship relations.
Power as symbolic
Symbolism plays a crucial role in the functioning of power. Power is not limited to concrete actions, but also extends to the sphere of ideas, beliefs and symbols. These symbolic elements can be used to legitimise the power in place, to mobilise support and to define collective identity. Symbols can take many forms, from rituals and monuments to speeches and gestures. They can help create an image of power and convey specific messages to citizens. For example, a political leader may use symbols to project an image of strength, wisdom or compassion. Rituals are also important in this context. They can be used to mark important transitions, such as the inauguration of a new leader, or to celebrate historical events. They contribute to the construction of social order and the definition of roles and status within society. The symbolic, while supporting power, can also be a means of contestation. Symbols can be reinterpreted, misappropriated or rejected by those who seek to challenge or change the established order.
Funeral rituals are of central importance in the transmission of power in many cultures, including that of the Mossi kingdom in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) in the 15th and 16th centuries. These rituals are both a time of mourning for the loss of the leader and a transition ceremony for the passing of power to the next generation.
The death of the king is marked by strong symbols, such as the bursting of a drum and the extinction of the royal fire. These symbolic acts signify the end of one era and the need to move on to the next. It is a moment of collective mourning, but also a moment of important political transition.
The responsibility of supervising the funeral rituals is entrusted to the eldest child of the king, whether son or daughter. This task is both an honour and an obligation, as it involves ensuring that the ritual is carried out correctly, according to the traditions and customs of the society. It is also an opportunity for the eldest child to show leadership and demonstrate his or her ability to assume the responsibilities of power.
The napoco, as you explain, is a crucial phase of this ritual. The eldest daughter of the deceased king dons her father's clothes, symbolising the temporary passing of power and ensuring the continuity of kingship, despite the patrilineal nature of the succession. She becomes the 'Queen of the Departed' and is carried through the land, showing the people that there is no power vacuum. Then the new king is chosen and rides through the land on the horse of the former king, symbolising the reclaiming of power. But to emphasise the transition from the old to the new reign, an act of rupture is necessary: the horse of the old king is killed, marking the end of the previous era and the beginning of the new. Finally, the enthronement ceremony, the qurita, officially marks the inauguration of the new king. These rituals, though complex and rich in symbolism, clearly demonstrate how power is both continuous and discontinuous, linked to both the lineage and the individual person. It is an eloquent demonstration of how traditional societies manage the transition of power and maintain social and political stability.
In many cultures and societies around the world, rituals play an essential role in ensuring a smooth and peaceful transition of power. These rituals have complex social, political and symbolic functions. In social terms, they serve to unify the community, reaffirm social norms and ensure continuity. Politically, they legitimise the new leader and help to maintain order and stability by avoiding potentially destructive power conflicts. In addition, they provide a framework for managing the change and uncertainty that can accompany a transition of power. On a symbolic level, power transition rituals emphasise the continuity between the old and new regimes, while marking the break necessary for the new beginning. They visually and physically represent the transition of power, helping the community to understand and accept the change. In sum, these power transition rituals, such as those you have described among the Mossi people, are an integral part of the management of the social and political order in many societies.
Language as an element of political power
Power is inextricably linked to communication; indeed, whoever masters speech and communication holds de facto power. Moreover, whoever has the ability to speak has the potential to manipulate power dynamics by establishing order, inciting violence or promoting security. There is thus an undeniable continuity between power and the use of speech.
Language plays a crucial role in the exercise of political power. Here are some of the many ways in which this happens:
- Framing: The way questions are asked can influence the way people think about them. This is called 'framing'. For example, if a politician talks about a 'tax burden' rather than 'public investment', this can influence how people think about the issue of taxation.
- Rhetoric: Politicians often use rhetoric to persuade people of their point of view. This can involve the use of metaphors, stories, emotions, repetition and other techniques to make their speeches more convincing.
- Information control: Governments can use language to control the information that is disseminated to the public. This can range from direct censorship to spreading misinformation.
- Creating identity: Language can be used to create collective identities. For example, the use of terms such as 'us' and 'them' can help to forge a sense of belonging to a group.
- Legitimisation of power: Language can also be used to legitimise the exercise of power. For example, a leader may use language to explain why certain actions are necessary or why they are best placed to lead.
Language is a powerful tool that can be used to influence, persuade and control in politics.
To illustrate their point, Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes refer to the mythical figure of Legba, the god of communication in some African cultures. Legba, master of all languages, is able to interpret the speeches of all other deities. He is considered a messenger sent by God to communicate with men. A cult has developed around Legba, not only in traditional places of worship, but also in the home. His omnipresent presence means that he is supposed to have the means to control the whole society, helping and, if necessary, sanctioning individuals. He is often seen as the king's spokesman and has the ability to anger and punish. Each individual is therefore expected to live his or her life under the supervision of this god.
This leads Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes to conclude that since the god holds the word, he also holds the power. Thus, language becomes a structuring knowledge. This is in line with Lévi-Strauss' view that language has the capacity to define the rules of social life and to express a truth that cannot be contested. In other words, the mastery of language is a means of controlling and shaping social reality, reflecting a form of power.
In other words, language is not just a tool of power, it is the essence of power. If power loses control of language, it loses its ability to exist. In contemporary theories, the importance of language and words is particularly emphasised in describing social realities. They allow power to be staged, and the relationship to power to be constructed and formalised. In other words, language is not only a means of communicating power, but also of constructing, shaping and maintaining it.
Modern theories of political anthropology are based on several fundamental principles:
- Power cannot exist without language: Language is the tool through which power is expressed and understood. It gives form to authority, rules and norms, and helps to build and maintain power structures.
- Power cannot exist without communication: Communication is essential for the transmission and reception of power. It enables the sharing of ideas, giving instructions, persuading and influencing, and building consensus.
- Power cannot exist without ritual: Rituals are symbolic manifestations of power that reinforce existing structures and help maintain social order. They play an essential role in legitimising power and creating a sense of cohesion and belonging within a community or society.
In other words, language, communication and ritual are all interconnected and play essential roles in the creation and maintenance of power in societies.
The staging of power is central to its exercise and maintenance. This can take many forms, from public speeches to official ceremonies, rituals and symbols. The idea is to reinforce the authority and legitimacy of the ruling power, while shaping public opinion and guiding social behaviour. The dramatisation of power can be used to reinforce the authority of the leader, to create respect or fear, or to create a sense of unity or collective identity. It can also help to institutionalise power, by making it more tangible and placing it at the heart of everyday practices and rituals. In short, the staging of power is an effective way of communicating and consolidating authority, while influencing the perceptions and behaviours of individuals within society.
Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, developed the concept of 'theatricality' in social life through his idea of 'social dramaturgy'. According to him, social life is a series of performances, in which individuals play different roles depending on the situation and the audience. This also applies to power. Power is not simply an abstract entity, but is manifested through actions, speeches and symbols that are deliberately staged to reinforce the authority and legitimacy of power. It is a form of 'performance' which, like any other performance, requires some staging to be effective. This may involve public speeches, official ceremonies, rituals, symbols, insignia of power, etc. These elements contribute to the 'performance' of power and are essential to communicate the authority, legitimacy and identity of power to the audience - the public or citizens. Moreover, this staging of power also helps to institutionalise power, making it more tangible and inserting it into the everyday practices and rituals of society. In sum, power is not only exercised, it is also represented and performatively expressed.
Dramatisation is a fundamental element of modern democracy. It plays a crucial role in the way power is expressed, perceived and understood. In a democracy, power is often expressed theatrically to communicate ideas, values and political positions to the public. For example, speeches by political leaders are often meticulously prepared and presented to maximise their impact and influence. Similarly, election campaigns, political debates, and even legislative sessions are often orchestrated with a certain amount of staging to highlight certain ideas or positions, or to influence public opinion. This does not necessarily mean that politics is insincere or superficial. On the contrary, dramatisation can be an effective way to communicate complex ideas and engage the public in political discussions. However, it is important to note that, like any tool, dramatisation can be used constructively or destructively, depending on the intention of those using it. Ultimately, theatrics is an inevitable part of modern democracy. It is both a reflection of our visual and mediated culture, and an essential means for political actors to communicate and interact with the public.
Rituals of social inversion
Any society that seeks to maintain harmony and legitimise power must manage a complex tension. This tension is often described as 'centrifugal', i.e. it pushes outwards in some way, away from the centre. This tension can arise from different sources, such as social, political or economic conflicts, or differences of opinion and values within society. On the one hand, tension can be constructive: it can stimulate change, innovation and social progress. It can also serve to hold leaders accountable and encourage transparency and fairness. However, if not managed properly, this tension can become destructive. It can lead to social conflict, political instability and even violence. Moreover, excessive tension can weaken the legitimacy of the ruling power and undermine public trust in institutions. To manage this tension, societies often develop various mechanisms, such as conflict resolution systems, social reversal rituals, and mechanisms for participation and democratic dialogue. These mechanisms can help to channel the tension in a productive way and maintain a delicate balance between maintaining order and respecting diversity and individual freedom.
Rituals of social inversion are one way in which societies manage this tension. These rituals temporarily reverse social roles and established norms, providing a safety valve for the tensions and frustrations that can build up in a hierarchical society. In such ceremonies, those who are normally in positions of power can be symbolically overthrown or ridiculed, while those who are usually submissive can be placed in positions of prestige and authority. These temporary reversals can help to relieve social tension, strengthen community solidarity and reaffirm existing social roles and norms. A classic example of a social inversion ritual is the carnival, a traditional celebration in many cultures where social norms and hierarchies are temporarily suspended or reversed. These events allow for a liberation from the usual social norms and can serve to critique, albeit symbolically, existing power structures. However, it is important to note that these rituals do not necessarily challenge power structures in the long term. After the ritual, roles and hierarchies are usually re-established, and power returns to normal. In this sense, reversal rituals can also serve to maintain the status quo by providing a temporary outlet for social tensions, without actually disrupting existing power structures.
Social inversion rituals, such as carnival, provide a way to release tensions by temporarily reversing roles and social norms. In these contexts, behaviours that are normally unacceptable or taboo are not only permitted, but encouraged. This may include acts of mockery of authority figures, the expression of normally repressed feelings, and the violation of social taboos. These rituals serve several important functions. First, they allow for a release of the social and emotional tension that can build up in a society. Second, they can serve as a safety valve, allowing people to express their frustration and discontent in a controlled manner, which can prevent the escalation of conflicts. Thirdly, they can strengthen social solidarity by bringing people together in a moment of fun and shared camaraderie. Finally, by mocking authority figures and inverting social hierarchies, these rituals can also serve to criticise and challenge the powers that be. However, because they are temporary and framed by ritual norms, they can often be tolerated by the authorities without seriously threatening their power. Indeed, by allowing such rituals, the authorities may even strengthen their legitimacy, by showing that they are able to tolerate criticism and opposition.
Rituals of social inversion, such as carnival, are usually controlled and limited in time. Although they allow for some freedom of expression and a temporary inversion of social norms, these rituals are usually carefully supervised to ensure that they do not degenerate into disorder or open revolt. Carnival, for example, takes place once a year, and its festivities are limited to a specific period. During this time, people are free to mock power, express feelings or behaviour that are normally repressed, and transgress social norms. However, once the carnival is over, the usual rules of conduct and respect for authority are re-established. In this way, power can tolerate, and even encourage, these inversion rituals, as they serve as a safety valve to release social tensions. At the same time, by limiting these rituals in time and by controlling them, power can ensure that they do not seriously threaten its authority or the stability of society. In other words, social inversion rituals are an integral part of the power strategy to manage and maintain social order.
Rituals of social inversion, such as carnival, are a kind of social regulation mechanism within the wider structure of society. They allow for some form of symbolic disobedience or subversion of social norms, but within a controlled and temporary framework. These rituals provide a safety valve to release the social tensions and frustrations that can build up in society. They allow individuals to express feelings or behaviours that are usually repressed or disapproved of. At the same time, by being limited in time and space and often framed by specific rules, these rituals of social inversion do not pose a serious threat to the social order or power. By allowing these forms of symbolic disobedience, power can actually strengthen its position, by showing tolerance and allowing individuals to express their frustrations in a controlled way. In this way, rituals of social inversion can help to maintain stability and social order in the long term.
The line between what constitutes a social inversion ritual and what does not can be difficult to draw. It depends largely on the specific cultural and social context. In social inversion rituals, usual roles and hierarchies are temporarily reversed or disrupted, allowing those who are usually in subordinate positions to assume roles of power, and vice versa. However, as you have pointed out, these reversals are usually strictly controlled and temporary, with the clear expectation that the normal social order will be restored at the end of the ritual. The paradox is that, although they appear subversive on the surface, social inversion rituals can actually reinforce the status quo. By allowing a certain amount of controlled transgression, they can help to relieve social tensions and reinforce the acceptance of existing roles and hierarchies. They can also help to emphasise and reinforce the importance of social norms and roles that are temporarily suspended or reversed. In other words, although they may appear to destabilise the social order, social inversion rituals can actually contribute to its preservation and perpetuation.
Social inversion rituals such as carnival or political satire can be based on several principles, including those you mentioned:
- Acceptance of mockery: In these rituals, the established power must tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, a certain amount of irreverence and mockery. This period of release may allow people to express frustrations or criticisms that would otherwise be repressed.
- Strengthening social bonds: Paradoxically, this period of disorder can actually strengthen social bonds. By allowing a controlled expression of dissent and providing a temporary escape from the constraints of everyday life, these rituals can relieve tensions and strengthen social cohesion.
These principles suggest that social inversion rituals are not simply moments of chaos and transgression, but also play an important role in maintaining social order and strengthening community solidarity.
Pour une anthropologie politique de la modernité
George Balandier (1920 - 2016)
George Balandier était un anthropologue et sociologue français réputé pour son travail sur l'Afrique. Né le 21 décembre 1920 et décédé le 5 octobre 2016, Balandier a largement contribué à l'anthropologie politique et à la sociologie de la modernité, notamment dans le contexte des sociétés postcoloniales. Il a étudié à la Sorbonne sous la direction de Marcel Mauss et a passé beaucoup de temps à étudier les sociétés en Afrique, notamment au Congo. Son travail a remis en question de nombreuses hypothèses occidentales sur les sociétés africaines et a souligné la complexité et la diversité de ces sociétés. Parmi ses œuvres les plus notables, on peut citer "Sociologie actuelle de l'Afrique Noire" (1955), où il analyse les dynamiques sociales et politiques de l'Afrique dans le contexte de la décolonisation, et "Le détour : pouvoir et modernité" (1985), où il examine les effets de la modernité sur les sociétés non occidentales. Balandier a été un pionnier dans l'étude des sociétés africaines et a grandement influencé la façon dont les anthropologues et les sociologues abordent l'étude de l'Afrique.
George Balandier a été un acteur clé dans l'étude des sociétés africaines durant la période de la décolonisation. Ses travaux de terrain en Afrique, notamment au Gabon et au Congo, lui ont permis d'observer et d'analyser les changements sociaux majeurs qui se produisaient alors que ces nations évoluaient vers l'indépendance. Dans ses ouvrages tels que "Changements sociaux au Gabon" et "Sociologie des Brazzavilles Noires", Balandier a examiné les transformations culturelles, sociales et politiques qui se produisaient en Afrique subsaharienne pendant cette période de transition. Ces travaux ont mis en lumière les défis et les opportunités associés à la décolonisation, tout en soulignant la complexité et la diversité des sociétés africaines. Balandier a souvent abordé le politique non seulement comme un système de pouvoir ou d'autorité, mais aussi comme un ensemble de fonctions, de structures et de permanences qui façonnent la vie sociale. Il a insisté sur le fait que le politique ne peut être séparé de son contexte social et culturel, et que la décolonisation était un processus complexe qui remodelait profondément ces sociétés. Il a également été précurseur dans la compréhension du politique en tant que phénomène non seulement de pouvoir et d'autorité, mais aussi de permanences et de structures qui influencent et façonnent la société. Ainsi, pour Balandier, le politique est intrinsèquement lié au social et à la culture.
George Balandier s'est intéressé à l'impact de la modernisation sur les systèmes politiques africains traditionnels dans le contexte de la décolonisation. Il a cherché à comprendre comment ces sociétés évoluaient et s'adaptaient face aux forces de la modernité et à l'émergence de l'indépendance politique. Balandier a analysé la manière dont l'indépendance a changé les structures politiques et sociales existantes, tout en créant de nouvelles formes de relations politiques et sociales. Il a observé que les processus d'indépendance ne se limitaient pas à des changements politiques ou économiques, mais qu'ils avaient également un impact profond sur les structures sociales, culturelles et symboliques de ces sociétés. Il a également souligné que l'indépendance n'était pas seulement une question de transformation politique, mais qu'elle impliquait également une transformation de la conscience individuelle et collective, marquée par l'émergence d'une nouvelle forme d'identité nationale et d'une nouvelle conception de la citoyenneté. Dans ses travaux, Balandier a également souligné que les sociétés africaines ne devaient pas être considérées comme des sociétés "traditionnelles" figées, mais comme des sociétés dynamiques et en constante évolution, capable d'intégrer des éléments de modernité tout en conservant certains aspects de leurs traditions. Balandier a donc contribué de manière significative à notre compréhension des processus de modernisation et d'indépendance en Afrique, et à la manière dont ces processus ont remodelé les structures politiques et sociales de ces sociétés.
George Balandier a effectivement identifié trois domaines clés dans lesquels les sociétés africaines expriment le mieux leur caractère unique et leurs réactions les plus significatives aux changements sociopolitiques :
- Les ensembles et les espaces culturels : Ces espaces permettent d'identifier les critères sur la base desquels les liens culturels et les exclusions sont exprimés. Ils sont le reflet des valeurs, des croyances et des pratiques qui définissent une société donnée. Ils peuvent aussi aider à comprendre comment ces sociétés perçoivent et interagissent avec d'autres cultures.
- Les religions et les innovations religieuses : Ces éléments révèlent les transformations de l'univers social et culturel africain, notamment les nouvelles configurations du politique. Les croyances religieuses et les pratiques spirituelles sont souvent profondément enracinées dans les cultures africaines, et les changements ou innovations dans ce domaine peuvent être le reflet de transformations sociales et politiques plus larges.
- Les systèmes politiques traditionnels : Ces systèmes sont souvent menacés par les processus de modernisation. Ils peuvent être mis sous pression ou transformés par des changements tels que l'urbanisation, la mondialisation, ou l'évolution des normes sociales et culturelles. Cependant, ils peuvent aussi s'adapter et évoluer en réponse à ces défis, ce qui peut donner lieu à de nouvelles formes de gouvernance ou de relations politiques.
Balandier a donc souligné l'importance de comprendre ces trois domaines pour saisir pleinement la nature dynamique et complexe des sociétés africaines dans le contexte de la décolonisation et de la modernisation.
George Balandier a observé que les processus de décolonisation ont souvent suivi le modèle de l'État-nation occidental. Même après avoir obtenu leur indépendance, de nombreux pays ont adopté des structures politiques, économiques et sociales similaires à celles de leurs anciens colonisateurs. C'est ce qu'on appelle souvent la "modernisation à l'occidentale". Ce modèle de modernisation occidentale a impliqué, entre autres, l'adoption de systèmes politiques démocratiques, de modèles économiques capitalistes, et d'une séparation claire entre les sphères publique et privée. Cependant, cette transition n'a pas toujours été facile ou sans conflit. En fait, dans de nombreux cas, elle a entraîné des bouleversements sociaux et culturels significatifs. En outre, Balandier a souligné que les processus de désintégration culturelle et sociale initiés par les puissances coloniales occidentales n'ont pas pris fin avec la décolonisation. En d'autres termes, les influences culturelles, sociales et économiques de l'Occident ont continué à avoir un impact sur les sociétés postcoloniales, même après leur indépendance officielle. Cela a conduit à une situation complexe dans laquelle les sociétés postcoloniales ont dû naviguer entre la préservation de leurs propres traditions et cultures et l'adaptation aux normes et structures occidentales. Cette tension entre tradition et modernité est un thème central dans le travail de Balandier et reste un enjeu important dans de nombreuses sociétés postcoloniales aujourd'hui.
Les notions de dépendance, de domination et de soumission
Les termes "dépendance", "domination" et "soumission" sont des concepts clés en sciences sociales, et ils sont souvent utilisés pour analyser des relations de pouvoir.
- Dépendance : La dépendance est un état où une entité est conditionnée ou contrôlée par une autre. Cela peut s'appliquer à divers niveaux, tels que les individus, les groupes sociaux ou les pays. Par exemple, en économie politique, la théorie de la dépendance analyse comment les pays développés et les pays en développement sont interconnectés de manière inégale, où les pays en développement dépendent souvent des pays développés pour leur développement économique.
- Domination : La domination fait référence à l'exercice du pouvoir ou du contrôle sur une autre entité. Elle peut s'exprimer de diverses manières, allant de la contrainte physique à l'influence culturelle ou idéologique. La domination peut être explicite, comme dans une dictature, ou plus subtile, comme dans les structures sociales qui favorisent certains groupes au détriment d'autres.
- Soumission : La soumission se réfère à l'acceptation de l'autorité ou du contrôle d'une autre entité. Il s'agit souvent d'une réponse à la domination, et peut être volontaire ou forcée. La soumission peut être le résultat de contraintes sociales, économiques ou politiques, ou peut être liée à des croyances ou des normes culturelles.
Ces concepts sont souvent liés et peuvent interagir de manière complexe. Par exemple, la dépendance peut conduire à la domination et à la soumission, et vice versa. De plus, ces relations ne sont pas fixes et peuvent changer au fil du temps à mesure que les dynamiques de pouvoir évoluent.
La dépendance est propre aux situations coloniales
a notion de dépendance est souvent utilisée pour analyser les relations postcoloniales, qui peuvent maintenir des formes de domination malgré la fin officielle du colonialisme. C'est ici que le concept de néocolonialisme entre en jeu. Le néocolonialisme fait référence à l'influence continue des anciennes puissances coloniales sur leurs anciennes colonies, même après l'indépendance politique de ces dernières.
Cette influence peut prendre diverses formes, notamment économiques, politiques et culturelles. Par exemple, les anciennes colonies peuvent rester économiquement dépendantes de leurs anciennes métropoles en raison de la structure de l'économie mondiale, qui est souvent orientée vers les intérêts des pays développés. Politiquement, les anciennes puissances coloniales peuvent continuer à exercer une influence par le biais de la diplomatie, de l'aide internationale ou d'autres mécanismes. Enfin, culturellement, les valeurs et les normes des anciennes puissances coloniales peuvent rester prédominantes, par exemple à travers l'éducation, les médias ou la langue.
La dépendance n'est donc pas simplement une caractéristique des relations coloniales, mais peut aussi se perpétuer dans les relations postcoloniales. Il est important de noter que ces relations sont complexes et peuvent varier considérablement d'un contexte à l'autre.
La domination produit de la dépendance (matérielle et spirituelle)
La domination peut produire des formes de dépendance à la fois matérielles et spirituelles.
- La dépendance matérielle est souvent économique et peut résulter de l'exploitation des ressources naturelles, de la main-d'œuvre ou du marché d'un pays par un autre. Dans de nombreux cas, cela crée une relation de dépendance où le pays dominé dépend du pays dominant pour son économie.
- La dépendance spirituelle peut se manifester de plusieurs façons. Par exemple, cela pourrait signifier l'adoption de croyances, de valeurs, de normes culturelles ou de pratiques religieuses du pays dominant par le pays dominé. Cela peut résulter d'un processus d'assimilation, de colonisation culturelle ou de l'effet du soft power.
Dans les deux cas, ces formes de dépendance peuvent limiter l'autonomie et la souveraineté du pays dominé et peuvent avoir des effets durables, même après la fin de la domination politique directe, comme cela peut être le cas après la décolonisation. C'est pourquoi il est essentiel de comprendre ces dynamiques lors de l'analyse des relations internationales et du développement.
La modernité et le contact avec d'autres cultures peuvent provoquer de profondes modifications dans les cultures existantes, par le biais de différents processus :
- La déculturation : C'est un processus dans lequel une personne ou un groupe perd ses valeurs culturelles et ses références en raison d'un contact brutal avec une autre culture. Cela peut entraîner une perte de la culture originale et souvent, l'adoption de la culture dominante. C'est un processus souvent associé à la colonisation et à l'assimilation forcée.
- L'acculturation : C'est un processus plus dynamique où il y a un mélange et une interaction entre deux cultures différentes. Elle implique des changements dans les modèles culturels initiaux d'un ou des deux groupes en raison d'un contact continu et direct. Il s'agit d'une forme de métissage culturel où les deux cultures s'influencent mutuellement.
- La contre-acculturation : C'est une réaction à l'acculturation. C'est le processus par lequel une société qui a été acculturée se mobilise pour protéger et revendiquer son identité culturelle originale. Cela peut impliquer un rejet des influences culturelles étrangères et une tentative de revitalisation de la culture originale.
Ces processus démontrent la complexité des interactions culturelles et la manière dont elles peuvent influencer les identités culturelles et les relations de pouvoir.
George Balandier a employé le concept d'aliénation pour analyser les conséquences de la décolonisation. L'aliénation, dans ce contexte, est comprise comme une forme de perte de soi et de sa culture en raison des processus de déculturation et d'acculturation induits par la colonisation. En d'autres termes, les individus ou les sociétés peuvent se sentir aliénés lorsqu'ils perdent leurs valeurs culturelles et leurs références (déculturation) par un contact intense et souvent imposé avec une autre culture. Cela peut conduire à l'adoption d'éléments de la culture dominante (acculturation), créant un mélange de l'ancien et du nouveau qui peut être déstabilisant. L'aliénation peut également être associée à des sentiments d'émancipation et de dépendance. Les individus peuvent se sentir émancipés par l'adoption de nouvelles idées, valeurs ou modes de vie. Cependant, ils peuvent aussi se sentir dépendants de la culture dominante pour leur identité et leur sens de la valeur. Dans le contexte de la décolonisation, l'aliénation peut être un phénomène complexe et multidimensionnel, reflétant les tensions entre le désir de préserver les traditions culturelles et la nécessité d'adapter et d'évoluer dans un monde en constante évolution.
La formation du champ politique dans les États africains modernes dépend d'un double processus : d'une part, la mobilisation des populations et la tentative de création d'une nouvelle identité, et d'autre part, la souffrance inhérente à la transition d'une société traditionnelle à une société moderne. Selon le point de vue africaniste des années 1950-1960, période de grande mutation, le processus politique est à l'intersection de ces deux réalités. Autrement dit, les comportements politiques et les systèmes politiques sont le produit à la fois de l'acculturation et de la déculturation. C'est un processus complexe et parfois difficile, où les individus et les sociétés sont constamment à la recherche d'un équilibre entre le maintien de leurs traditions culturelles et l'adaptation aux exigences et aux valeurs de la société moderne. Les leaders politiques, en particulier, sont confrontés à la tâche difficile de naviguer dans ces eaux troubles, en essayant de répondre aux besoins et aux attentes changeantes de leurs citoyens tout en respectant et en préservant leur héritage culturel.
Balandier a soutenu que dans ce processus de transformation politique, on retrouve à la fois des éléments de rationalité propres à la politique occidentale et des éléments traditionnels qui caractérisent cette gouvernementalité primitive. Il a souligné que la politique, en particulier dans le contexte africain, est intéressante car elle établit un équilibre entre une vision rationnelle, caractéristique de l'Occident, et une vision plus traditionnelle de l'anthropologie africaine, avec ses rites, ses rituels et son imaginaire, parfois même magique. Cette idée reflète la complexité et la richesse des systèmes politiques africains, qui sont à la fois ancrés dans des traditions culturelles profondes et confrontés à la nécessité de s'adapter aux normes et aux structures de la modernité occidentale. En ce sens, la politique en Afrique est souvent un mélange fascinant de l'ancien et du nouveau, du traditionnel et du moderne.
Le caractère composite des systèmes politiques africains modernes découle de la coexistence de ces éléments traditionnels et modernes. Ces systèmes portent en eux les contradictions inhérentes à la rencontre de ces deux réalités, ce qui peut expliquer les difficultés rencontrées pour construire leur identité nationale et leur territoire. La construction d'une identité nationale implique souvent la nécessité de trouver un équilibre entre la préservation des traditions locales et l'adaptation aux structures politiques et sociales modernes. Par conséquent, ces contradictions peuvent parfois se traduire par des tensions ou des défis dans le processus de formation de l'État-nation. Cependant, il est également important de noter que cette coexistence peut être une source de richesse et de diversité, offrant la possibilité d'une voie unique vers la modernité qui respecte et valorise les traditions et les cultures locales.
Les domaines de l’anthropologie politique de la modernité
La ritualisation du politique
La ritualisation du politique fait référence à l'idée que les pratiques politiques sont souvent encadrées par des rituels qui donnent un sens symbolique à ces pratiques. Ces rituels peuvent prendre de nombreuses formes, allant des cérémonies d'inauguration aux discours politiques, en passant par les débats parlementaires. Ils sont importants car ils aident à structurer l'action politique et à légitimer le pouvoir.
- Les rituels d'investiture : Ce sont des cérémonies lors desquelles un individu est officiellement investi d'un rôle ou d'une fonction politique. Par exemple, la cérémonie d'investiture d'un président est un rituel politique important qui symbolise le passage du pouvoir.
- Les rituels législatifs : Les débats parlementaires et les votes sont également encadrés par des rituels qui régissent la manière dont les législateurs doivent se comporter et interagir. Ces rituels aident à maintenir l'ordre et le respect des procédures démocratiques.
- Les rituels de commémoration : Les cérémonies commémoratives, comme le Jour du Souvenir, sont des rituels politiques qui permettent à une société de se souvenir et de rendre hommage à des événements ou à des personnes importants de son passé.
- Les rituels de protestation : Les mouvements de protestation ont souvent leurs propres rituels, comme les marches ou les grèves, qui aident à unifier le mouvement et à attirer l'attention sur sa cause.
- Les rituels de discours : Les discours politiques sont souvent encadrés par des rituels. Par exemple, lors d'un discours sur l'état de l'Union, le président des États-Unis est traditionnellement interrompu par des applaudissements à des moments précis.
La ritualisation du politique est importante car elle contribue à la légitimation du pouvoir. Les rituels politiques renforcent l'autorité des dirigeants et aident à maintenir la cohésion sociale en faisant appel à des symboles et à des traditions partagés. Ils peuvent aussi être utilisés pour galvaniser le soutien pour une cause ou pour critiquer et contester le pouvoir en place.
Les rituels dans les sociétés traditionnelles ou "primitives" (terme qui est de moins en moins utilisé en anthropologie en raison de ses connotations péjoratives) jouent un rôle crucial dans le maintien de l'ordre social et de la cohésion communautaire. Les rituels sont un moyen pour ces sociétés de donner un sens à leur monde, d'établir des normes sociales et de renforcer l'identité collective. Les différents types de rituels sont tous importants dans ces sociétés.
- Lutter contre l'usure : Ces rituels peuvent inclure des rites de renouveau, qui sont destinés à rétablir et à revigorer l'énergie vitale de la communauté. Ils peuvent être liés à des cycles naturels, comme les saisons, ou à des événements sociaux, comme l'arrivée d'un nouveau chef.
- Introniser un nouveau chef : Les rituels d'intronisation sont essentiels pour légitimer la position d'un nouveau chef et pour faciliter la transition de pouvoir au sein de la communauté.
- Expulser la maladie et les catastrophes naturelles : Ces rituels peuvent comprendre des rites de purification ou d'exorcisme, qui sont destinés à éloigner le mal ou la malchance de la communauté.
- Réinstaller le pouvoir mystique : Ces rituels reconnaissent et renforcent le pouvoir sacré ou surnaturel qui est censé soutenir l'ordre social et politique.
- Intégrer la communauté par un lien mémoriel : Ces rituels peuvent inclure des cérémonies commémoratives ou des rites de passage, qui aident à forger un sentiment d'identité partagée et à maintenir la continuité historique de la communauté.
La répétition est une caractéristique clé de ces rituels. Par leur répétition régulière, ils aident à renforcer les normes et les valeurs de la communauté, à donner un sentiment de continuité et de stabilité, et à créer un sentiment d'appartenance chez les membres de la communauté.
Les rites politiques
Les rituels continuent à jouer un rôle essentiel dans les sociétés modernes, même si la forme qu'ils prennent peut être très différente de celle des sociétés traditionnelles. Voici une explication plus détaillée de chacune des fonctions :
- L'intégration : Les rituels aident à intégrer les individus au sein de la communauté en créant un sentiment de cohésion et d'unité. Ils peuvent aider à renforcer un sentiment d'appartenance à un groupe et à créer un consensus autour des valeurs et des croyances partagées.
- La légitimation : Les rituels peuvent aider à légitimer l'ordre social et politique existant. Par exemple, des cérémonies d'investiture peuvent servir à légitimer la position d'un nouveau dirigeant ou d'un gouvernement.
- La hiérarchisation : Les rituels peuvent aider à renforcer et à symboliser la hiérarchie sociale. Par exemple, lors d'une cérémonie de remise de diplômes, les professeurs et les administrateurs sont souvent vêtus de robes académiques qui symbolisent leur statut et leur autorité.
- La moralisation : Les rituels peuvent aider à renforcer les normes morales et éthiques d'une communauté. Par exemple, lors d'un mariage, les vœux prononcés par le couple peuvent renforcer les normes de fidélité et d'engagement.
- L'exaltation : Les rituels peuvent aider à susciter des émotions fortes et à créer un sentiment d'enthousiasme et d'excitation. Par exemple, lors d'un match de football, les chants et les acclamations des supporters peuvent aider à susciter un sentiment d'excitation et de passion.
Ainsi, bien que les formes spécifiques des rituels puissent varier considérablement d'une société à l'autre, leurs fonctions fondamentales restent largement les mêmes.
La mise en scène du politique est une caractéristique fondamentale de la démocratie moderne. Cela se manifeste dans de nombreuses formes différentes, allant de discours publics soigneusement mis en scène aux cérémonies d'inauguration, en passant par les parades et les manifestations de masse. Ces rituels politiques jouent plusieurs rôles importants. Tout d'abord, ils fournissent une occasion pour les dirigeants politiques de communiquer directement avec le public, de transmettre leurs messages et de façonner leur image publique. Cela peut inclure l'articulation de valeurs et d'idéaux spécifiques, ou la démonstration de compétence et d'autorité. Ensuite, les rituels politiques peuvent également aider à renforcer l'identité et la cohésion de la communauté. Cela peut se faire en célébrant des valeurs et des traditions communes, ou en créant un sentiment de solidarité et d'appartenance parmi les participants. Enfin, les rituels politiques peuvent également servir à légitimer l'ordre politique existant. Par exemple, une cérémonie d'inauguration peut servir à légitimer le passage de pouvoir d'un dirigeant à un autre, tandis qu'un défilé militaire peut être utilisé pour démontrer la force et la stabilité d'un régime. Cependant, il est important de noter que bien que les rituels politiques puissent être utilisés pour ces fins positives, ils peuvent également être utilisés de manière manipulatrice ou coercitive. Par exemple, ils peuvent être utilisés pour promouvoir des idéologies ou des politiques controversées, ou pour renforcer le pouvoir et le contrôle d'un dirigeant autoritaire.
Le discours politique
Le discours est un élément central du rituel politique. Il est un outil de communication puissant qui permet aux dirigeants politiques de transmettre leurs idées, leurs valeurs et leurs visions à leur public. Il joue également un rôle important dans la construction de l'identité politique d'un individu ou d'un groupe, ainsi que dans la légitimation du pouvoir. Un discours bien conçu et bien délivré peut être un moyen efficace de susciter l'adhésion du public, de persuader les auditeurs de la justesse d'une position particulière ou d'une politique, ou de générer du soutien pour une cause ou un mouvement. En même temps, le discours peut également servir à établir des distinctions entre différents groupes ou idéologies, ou à critiquer ou contester les positions ou les actions des opposants. Par ailleurs, le discours politique n'est pas seulement une question de contenu ; la manière dont il est délivré - le ton, le langage corporel, le choix des mots, etc. - joue également un rôle crucial dans la façon dont il est perçu et interprété par le public. C'est pourquoi la préparation et la livraison d'un discours sont souvent soigneusement orchestrées pour maximiser leur impact. Le discours est une part importante du rituel politique, offrant aux dirigeants politiques un moyen de communiquer avec leur public, de façonner l'opinion publique et de légitimer leur pouvoir.
L'analyse du discours est un outil précieux en sciences sociales et en études politiques pour comprendre les processus de pouvoir, d'intégration et de mobilisation. Cela permet non seulement de comprendre ce qui est dit explicitement, mais aussi d'explorer les sous-entendus, les implicites et les structures de pensée sous-jacentes. L'analyse du discours peut être réalisée à différents niveaux. Par exemple :
- Analyse du contenu : Ici, on examine les thèmes et les sujets qui sont abordés dans le discours, ainsi que ceux qui sont omis. On cherche à comprendre quelles sont les préoccupations prioritaires de l'orateur et quels messages il cherche à transmettre.
- Analyse du langage : Cela implique de regarder de près le choix des mots, les métaphores, les références culturelles ou historiques, etc. Cela peut révéler des choses sur les valeurs, les attitudes et les présupposés de l'orateur.
- Analyse du contexte : Cela suppose de comprendre le discours dans son contexte social, politique et historique. Qui est l'auditoire ? Quels sont les problèmes politiques en jeu ? Quels sont les objectifs de l'orateur ?
- Analyse des effets : Ici, on cherche à comprendre comment le discours a été reçu et interprété, et quels impacts il a pu avoir sur l'opinion publique, les décisions politiques, etc.
L'analyse du discours peut aider à révéler la complexité des processus politiques et sociaux, et à comprendre comment le pouvoir est exercé à travers le langage.
Dans de nombreux contextes politiques, le discours prononcé par un politicien est souvent préparé par une équipe de rédacteurs de discours. Ces personnes travaillent en étroite collaboration avec le politicien pour s'assurer que le discours reflète ses idées et ses valeurs, tout en étant aussi convaincant et efficace que possible. C'est un processus complexe qui nécessite une compréhension profonde de la politique, de la rhétorique et de la communication. L'écart que vous mentionnez entre la prononciation du discours et sa fabrication peut en effet poser des défis pour l'analyse du discours. Par exemple, il peut être difficile de déterminer dans quelle mesure les idées exprimées dans le discours reflètent réellement les croyances et les intentions du politicien, et dans quelle mesure elles sont le produit d'un processus de rédaction collectif et stratégique. De plus, il est important de noter que même si le discours est préparé par une équipe, la façon dont le politicien le prononce - son ton, son style, son langage corporel - peut aussi avoir un impact significatif sur la façon dont il est reçu et interprété par le public. C'est pourquoi l'analyse du discours en politique nécessite une approche multifacette, qui prend en compte non seulement le contenu du discours lui-même, mais aussi le contexte dans lequel il est produit et reçu.
Annexes
- André Gunder Frank, “Anthropologie = idéologie. Anthropologie appliquée = politique.” In revue L’homme et la société, revue internationale de recherches et de synthèses sociologiques, no 31-32, janvier-juin 1974, pp. 185-194. Paris: Les Éditions Anthropos. disponible sur Les Classiques des sciences sociales. url: http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/frank_andre_gunder/anthropologie_ideologie/anthropologie_ideologie.html
Références
- ↑ COLOMB, C. The Discovery of America, Vol. I The Logbook 1492-1493; Vol. II Travel Relations 1493-1504, Paris, La Découverte, 1989.