Dialectical systems, history and anthropology: units of study and questions of theory

Abstract

Ever since the publication of Maitland's famed dictum that anthropology must become history or be nothing2 a gradually burgeoning literature has called for convergence between the two disciplines.3 The general point has been laboured ad nauseam: given their shared epistemological foundations and complementary objectives, each would benefit from the insights and analytical perspectives of the other. But such apologetics typically beg the fundamental question, 'Which anthropology, what history?' As a result, the point is often lost that any substantive relationship between disciplines is determined not by the intrinsic nature of those disciplines if any such thing exists but by prior theoretical considerations. It would seem obvious, for example, that historical analysis assumes different significance for structural functionalism than it does for either Marxist or structuralist approaches.4