UPSC MainsANTHROPOLOGY-PAPER-II201820 Marks
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q20.

Compare and contrast the economic typology of tribes given by different anthropologists.

How to Approach

This question requires a comparative analysis of different anthropological perspectives on tribal economies. The answer should demonstrate understanding of the typologies proposed by scholars like Maine, Morgan, Sahlins, and Bose. A structured approach is crucial: begin by defining economic typology in the context of anthropology, then discuss each scholar’s contribution, highlighting their similarities and differences. Focus on the underlying theoretical frameworks and the specific characteristics of the tribal economies they studied. Conclude by assessing the relevance of these typologies in contemporary India.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Economic typology, in anthropology, refers to the classification of economic systems based on their organizational principles, modes of production, and distribution mechanisms. Understanding tribal economies is crucial as they often represent unique adaptations to specific ecological and socio-political contexts. Early anthropological studies attempted to categorize these economies into evolutionary stages, while later approaches focused on their internal logic and cultural embeddedness. This answer will compare and contrast the economic typologies proposed by prominent anthropologists like Henry Maine, Lewis Henry Morgan, Marshall Sahlins, and Nirmal Kumar Bose, highlighting their contributions and limitations in understanding the diverse economic realities of tribes.

Henry Maine and the Concept of Status and Contract

Henry Maine, in his work Ancient Law (1861), proposed a distinction between ‘status’ and ‘contract’ based societies. He argued that tribal economies were primarily based on ‘status’, where rights and obligations were determined by birth and social position, rather than individual agreement. Land ownership was communal, and economic activities were geared towards fulfilling social obligations and maintaining group solidarity. Maine believed this was a pre-contractual stage of economic development. His focus was on the legal aspects of economic organization, and he saw tribal economies as static and unchanging.

Lewis Henry Morgan and Evolutionary Stages

Lewis Henry Morgan, in Ancient Society (1877), presented an evolutionary scheme of societal development, including economic organization. He identified three main stages: Savagery, Barbarism, and Civilization. Tribal economies, according to Morgan, were largely situated within Savagery and Barbarism. In Savagery, economies were based on hunting and gathering with communal ownership. Barbarism saw the development of horticulture and animal husbandry, leading to increased property ownership and social stratification. Morgan’s approach was heavily influenced by unilineal evolutionism, assuming all societies progressed through the same stages. He emphasized the role of technology in driving economic change.

Marshall Sahlins and the Original Affluent Society

Marshall Sahlins, in his influential work Stone Age Economics (1972), challenged the conventional wisdom that hunter-gatherer societies were perpetually struggling for survival. He argued that they were, in fact, ‘the original affluent society’ because they possessed enough resources to meet their needs with minimal labor. Sahlins emphasized the cultural logic of resource management and the importance of minimizing work effort. He introduced concepts like ‘general reciprocity’, ‘balanced reciprocity’, and ‘negative reciprocity’ to explain exchange relationships. Sahlins’ approach was markedly different from earlier evolutionary models, focusing on the internal rationality and adaptive strategies of tribal economies. He rejected the idea of a linear progression towards complex economic systems.

Nirmal Kumar Bose and the Dynamic Nature of Tribal Economies

Nirmal Kumar Bose, an Indian anthropologist, offered a nuanced perspective on tribal economies, particularly in the Indian context. He criticized the static and evolutionary approaches of Maine and Morgan, arguing that tribal economies were dynamic and constantly adapting to changing circumstances. Bose emphasized the importance of understanding the specific historical and ecological contexts of each tribe. He highlighted the role of trade, market integration, and external forces in shaping tribal economies. Bose’s work demonstrated that tribal economies were not isolated or primitive, but actively engaged in complex economic interactions.

Comparative Analysis

Anthropologist Key Concepts Focus Limitations
Henry Maine Status vs. Contract Legal aspects of economic organization Static view, ignores internal dynamics
Lewis Henry Morgan Savagery, Barbarism, Civilization Evolutionary stages of economic development Unilineal evolutionism, ethnocentric bias
Marshall Sahlins Original Affluent Society, Reciprocity Cultural logic of resource management May underestimate environmental constraints
Nirmal Kumar Bose Dynamic adaptation, Historical context Specific contexts of tribal economies Less generalized theoretical framework

While Maine and Morgan viewed tribal economies as representing earlier stages of development, Sahlins and Bose offered more nuanced and culturally sensitive interpretations. Sahlins emphasized the rationality and efficiency of hunter-gatherer economies, while Bose highlighted their dynamic nature and responsiveness to external forces. The key difference lies in the theoretical framework: evolutionary versus relativistic. Maine and Morgan sought to place tribal economies within a universal evolutionary scheme, while Sahlins and Bose focused on understanding them on their own terms.

Conclusion

The economic typologies proposed by these anthropologists provide valuable insights into the diverse economic realities of tribes. While early evolutionary models have been largely discredited, they laid the groundwork for later, more sophisticated analyses. Sahlins’ and Bose’s work, in particular, emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural logic and historical context of tribal economies. In contemporary India, tribal economies are increasingly integrated into the market economy, facing challenges such as land alienation, resource depletion, and displacement. A nuanced understanding of these economic systems, informed by anthropological insights, is crucial for formulating effective policies that promote tribal welfare and sustainable development.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Reciprocity
A system of exchange between individuals or groups, typically involving goods and services, and often based on social obligations and mutual expectations.
Communal Ownership
A system of property ownership where resources are held collectively by a group or community, rather than by individuals.

Key Statistics

According to the 2011 Census of India, Scheduled Tribes constitute 8.2% of the total population.

Source: Census of India, 2011

As of 2018, approximately 47% of India’s tribal population lives below the poverty line (based on knowledge cutoff).

Source: National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 2018

Examples

The Gond Tribe Economy

The Gond tribe of central India traditionally practiced shifting cultivation (podu) and forest resource extraction. Their economy was largely self-sufficient, with limited market integration. However, with increasing deforestation and land alienation, they have become increasingly dependent on wage labor.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are all tribal economies the same?

No, tribal economies are incredibly diverse, varying based on ecological conditions, historical factors, and cultural practices. There is no single ‘tribal economy’ but rather a range of adaptations to specific environments and social contexts.

Topics Covered

AnthropologyEconomyIndian SocietyTribal EconomyEconomic AnthropologyHunter-Gatherers