8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 1/16

The Past and the Present in the Present

Author(s): Maurice BlochSource: Man, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Aug., 1977), pp. 278-292Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2800799

Accessed: 11/10/2010 21:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 2/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 3/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 4/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 5/16

MAURICE BLOCH 28I

changesnrules.While,forFirth,hoices re decisions boutwhether oobeyordisobey ules, orLeach choices re concernedwithwhichruleto obey. Leach,however,hasto facetheproblem hat he actorsmustbe able to communicateamong themselves. learlytheycannotchooseany system ecause thentheiractionswouldstopbeingmeaningfulne for nother,nd so Leachshows hat llthesevarying ulesembodythesamemeaningfulategories,nderstandingfwhich s sharedn thewholegeographicalrea.This does avoid thedifficultyon-cerning ommunicationut tbrings s back n a differentayto the arlier rob-lemwhichwesaw n Firth's heory.nstead f ctions eingbounded y themean-ingsgiven othem yrules hey rebounded ythemeaning iven o them ytheshared oncepts. hus,for he amereason hat irth'sheoryannot ccount orthecreationf new rules, each'stheoryannot ccount or hecreation f new

concepts.This seems t firstight strange roblem ecause t s difficultoseewhy omeofthe ctors ta certain oint n the ocialprocess annot ay:this ocial ystemsno good atall, etus take freshookat the ituationndbuildup a newsystem.Thereasonwhy hey annot,withinhe heoreticalrameworkiscussed,ies ntheunanalysedotion fthe ocialdeterminationfthought. imply f all conceptsandcategoriesre determinedythe ocial ystem freshook simpossibleinceall cognitionsalreadymoulded ofitwhat sto be criticised.

Strangelyheproblem lso existsna theory hich eems o doprecisely hat sneeded ince tofferso theactors source fknowledgewhichcan be used to

challenge he ocial order. his sa theory xpressedya variedgroup fwriters,mainly rench,who have drawn heirnspirationromMarx Meillassoux972:

Terray 969: Godelier966; I973). Thispositionwouldcriticise each and Firthintheway outlinedbove andas a solution ropose hat he nfrastructuree con-structedna waythatstotallyxternal oeitherules rconcepts,nterms f therationaleftheprocessesfproductionndreproduction.istoryould thenbeseen s the nteractionftwo evels fdifferentature, either ne beingreducedto theother,o that continuallyrogressiveialectic ould exist etween hem.This kindoftheorywouldthereforeruly chieve he elusive oal of a dynamicsystem hich akesnto ccount he haredystemf meaningsf peoplewithout

itsmovementeing aughtwithint.Theproblemhere, owever,omes rom hefact hat he nfrastructuresseen sexternalothe oncepts f the ctors.Now forittobea source fcriticismfthe ocial rder tmeans hat eoplemust pprehendit n termsvailable o them ndwhich redifferentrom nd ncompatible iththoseof the dominant ocial theory. his meanstermsnot determined y it.Otherwisehe nfrastructure,owever ontradictoryo thedominantocial heory,isnever ransformednto ction nd ust carriesn in itsown sweetway, totallyirrelevanto theprocesses f history.

One canputtheproblemgenerallyy saying hat, f we believe n the socialdeterminationfconcepts,s all thewritersmentionedo far acitlyr explicitly

do,thiseaves he ctorswithno language o talk bout heir ocietynd so changeit, ince hey an only alkwithint.Thisproblemxplainswhy nthropologistsrecontinuallyroducing icturesf society imilaro those f thehistorians ho sowellexplainedhe ogicof the eudal ystem hat hey lso explainedwhypeasants'revolts ouldnotoccur. t alsoexplainswhy nthropologists'ork eavesus totally

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 6/16

282 MAURICE BLOCH

unpreparedor hedramaticndrevolutionaryhangeswhich reoccurringnthevery reas heyhavestudied.

So whatevidences there or hecrucial ndapparentlyestable ropositionfthesocial determinationf knowledge rom ecent tudies f cognition?Well,anthropologicaltudies fcognitiveystemstpresenteem trangelyontradict-ory. On the one handwe have thework of suchwriterss Levi-Strauss,eertz,Douglas,andWillis,which tresshevariationnsystemsf classificationfsuchthingssanimals, lants, olours,ndwhich,n variousways, ink hese ystemsfcognitionosocial tructure.n theother andwe alsohavecompletelyifferentstudiesssociatedrincipally ith heworkofKay I975),BerlinI972), Berlin&Kay I969), Berlin tal. (I973) andBulmerI967; I968; I970) which omeupwithtotally ifferentindings. asically, hat olour,plant, nimal and evenhuman

classificationsrebasedon identical riteriandproduce denticallasses ndsub-classes arying nly ndegree felaboration. believe hecontradictionetweenthese wo types f studies an be explained,nd t s to this hat now turn.

II

Firstetus ookatwhat sprobablyhemost undamentallaim, epeatedly adeby culturalelativists-thatonceptsf ime re losely ound o social rganisationand thereforeary romocietyosociety. his s not topic hat,s far s know,has actually een examinedby Berlin and Kay or their ssociates. ut social

scientistss varieds DurkheimI9I2), Boas I966), Le'vi-StraussI962, I966), andEvans-Pritchard3avelovedto tell us that henotionoftime,whichwe feel sself-evident,an be experiencednother ultures,ntotally ifferentays,notaslinear utperhapss static r ascyclic. his s a really opular laim o make monganthropologists,fonlyfor he reason hat f t, nd all it implied,weretrue, llacademic ubjects, specially hebetter unded nes such sphysics,houldreallybecome imply sub-tradefanthropology.his ndeedwasalmost hepositionfWhorfi956) but t s alsoratherarelesslymplied y many thers.

In one sense t eastwhat hey ay s true, hats fthe laim bouttherelativityofconcepts f time s upheld, t is so fundamental,hat tinevitablyustifieshe

conclusionhat llaspects fculturererelative. owever, venbeforewe look atthis ropositionritically,omethingught o makeus uspicious.n ts ull aroqueform herelativists'rgument ill have us believe hatwe canproduce wholerange f differentoncepts ftime ordifferentultures. owever, n examinationofthisrangerevealsthat tbyand argeboilsdown to only wo notions f time.On theonehandwe haveconcepts atherike our own folk veryday oncept flinear urational ime nd on the other anda concept fa static otion f timeoften eferredo as cyclic, hetwowordsreferringo the ame sort f evidence.Before roceeding, owever, ne pointmust e made. n reducing he vidence otwo types am, of course, alking bout claimsconcerning he perception fduration ottheways nwhich ime sdivided p,ormetaphoricallyepresented.Theseare,of course, egionbut arenot relevant o our argument. he Malagasyusedto,and still ometimes ow, divide heday n terms f theparts f thehousereached y therays f the un.Thisworks ecause f the trict rientationf theirhouses, ut tonly ells s that hey se differentypes fclocks rom s. This s not

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 7/16

MAURICE BLOCH 283

what am talkingbout.Let us returno the morefundamentallaimthatdif-ferent eople perceive ime differently.irst f all there re a prioriargumentsagainst his ype f laimwhichhavebeenformulatednvarying aysby, mongst

others, ellnerI968) in answer o Winch,Max Black I959) inanswer oWhorf,and nphilosophy y Ayer I973) inanswer o theNew Hegelians. he most e-currentuch oint scontainednWittgenstein'samous emark hatif ions ouldspeakwe could not understandhem'.4 n otherwords, hat ommunication ithcreatures ith fundamentallyifferentystemf deas nd ife s notpossible,ndsurely eople with differentoncept f timewould nthis espect e like ions,since veryonegreesbout heparticularlyundamentalature f his roposition.On the ther and, he xistencef nthropologytself earswitnesso the act hatit spossible,fwith ertain ifficulty,o communicate ith llother uman eings,however ifferentheir ulture.Wittgenstein'soologybrings o mind nothere-mark ya supporterf cognitive elativitynd shows tsnaivety,hats,the riti-cismmadeby Evans-Pritchardf anthropologistsho tried o understandtherculturesnterms hichmade ense othem.He ridiculedhis ype freasoning ydescribingt as if I werea horse' arguments;he mplicationeingthat or heanthropologistopretendo reconstructhe hought rocessesf other eople sasridiculousstryingoreconstructhe hought rocessesfhorse.5 utsurely,hereisno reason o believe hatfhorses ould speak,we wouldunderstandhem nybetter han ions,while Evans-Pritchard'shole work is a demonstrationhat,withhelpfrom he nthropologists,e can ndeedunderstandheAzandeorthe

Nuer. This spossibly ecause fa fact hat vans-Pritchardeems ohave over-looked;that either e,nor other nthropologists,tudy orses.n otherwords,fotherpeople reallyhad differentoncepts f time we couldnot do whatwepatently o,that s communicate iththem. vidence or ucha conclusion lsocomesfrom completely ifferentource, nd that s themass f recent tudies fsyntax nd emanticsfdifferentanguages hat avebeen arried utby Americanlinguists. isagreementsndpolemicsn this ield re many, utat east onsensusseems o be emergingn onepoint, ndthat s that he undamentalogic mployedinthe yntax f ll anguagess,Whorf otwithstanding,he ame.The mplicationsofthisfornotions f time re clear.The logic of languagesmplies notionof

temporalitynd sequence ndsoif ll syntaxsbased n the ame ogic, llspeakersmust ta fundamentalevel pprehendime nthe ameway, nd ndeed his eemsconfirmedythe otal ailure fpsychologicalestsnd attemptsosubstantiateheclaims fWhorf nd Sapir nthis espectBrown & Lenneberg954; Hoijer 954).

Becauseof this ind f a priori bjection heburden fprooffor he laim hatconcepts f time re culturallyariablemust urelyie with herelativists.learlyI cannot xamine ll such laims nd so I have chosen neexamplebecause f tselegance nd its nfluentialature.Geertz I973) in a famous rticle,etsout toshowhow theBalinesehave a differentoncept f time. Actually he Balinesehavea 'broad back' and have beenusedfor his ort fthing eforewhichmakes

their aseparticularlynteresting.)e offers vidence rom hreemain sources.The firststhecalendars heBalinese se: a lunar alendar ndmore mportantlyanother alendricalystem onsistingf a number f cycles f days of differinglengthwhich un ndependentlyf each other n theway thatweeks nd monthsrun ndependentlyf each other n our own calendar. he surprisinghing ere s

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 8/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 9/16

MAURICE BLOCH 285

rituals, hetherocial, eligious rstate. y contrasthe ontextsnwhichnotionsofdurational ime reused are practical ctivities,specially griculturend un-institutionalisedower.

This contrast etweennon-ritualommunicationnd universal oncepts,ndritual ommunicationndstrange therwaysofthinking,xplains heapparentcontradictionn thefindings f cognitivetudieswhich noted.Whenwe lookwhereBerlin ndKayget heirnformationrom, e find hatt s from on-ritualpractical ommunication.n the otherhand,writersuch as Douglas,Geertz,Turner,Willis, and Levi-Strauss,oncentratelmost xclusivelyn ritual om-municationndmyth. fcourse heresnothing rongndoing hatn tself,uttheres, f t s suggestedhatwhatthey indsthe ognitiveystemf thepeoplethey tudied. his s especially o since thasalwaysbeen, nd still s,a recurrent

professional alpracticefanthropologistsoexaggerate

heexoticcharacter fother ultures. nlyconcentratingn thepicture ftheworldapparentnritual

communication aywell be due to this endency,nd t obscureshefact ftheuniversal ature fa part fthecognitiveystemvailable n all cultures.

In otherwords heBalinese vidence oesnotsupportheview thatnotions ftimevaryfromculture o culture,t onlyshowsthat, n ritual ontexts,heBalineseusea differentotion ftimefrom hat nmoremundane ontextsndthatnthesemundane ontextsategoriesndclassificationre, tmaybe assumedfrom erlin nd Kay'sfindings,asedon cognitive niversals.

Furthermore,henature f the contextswhere we find hese ognitive ni-

versalstselfuggestsnexplanationf their resence. urkheim,ike others fterhim,rejectedhenotion hat ognition as constrainedynature, y pointingothevariabilityfconcepts, specially fconcepts f time;but fhe iswrong nthis, isobjection annot old.What smore, incet s ncontexts hereman s nmost irect ontactwithnature hatwe find niversaloncepts,hehypothesishatit ssomethingn theworldbeyond ocietywhich onstrainst east ome ofourcognitiveategoriessstrengthened,houghhis eednotbe nature san ndepend-ent ntityoman,but, s I believe ssuggested y Berlin ndKay'sdata ndfore-shadowed by Marx,nature s the subjectof humanactivitysee also RoschI975).7

III

Now with hisnmind etusturn otheotherognitiveystem:hat videntnritual ommunicationnd ee, f here t east, henotion hat t ssocietyhatsthesource fcognitionanbe retained. o do this, owever,t snecessaryo ookatthis society'which t is claimeddoes the constraining. ell, Durkheim ndRadcliffe-Brownrequite lear bout t, t sthepatternfcorporate roups ndroleswhichreproducestself hrough ime. t is a system ot offlesh ndbonepeople tanyparticular oment utone which ranscendseopleboth nterms ftheirndividualityndtheir emporality.his s the on theground henomenon'

whichmoulds deas up inthe ir'.Now thereretwothingsonote bout his heoryf ociety. hefirstssome-

thing hat tfirst ight ppears coincidence,hat s itsextraordinaryimilaritywithwhatGeertz ells s stheBalinese iew of time ndpersons. o go backtoourearlier uote:hesays ftheBalinese hat hey ave a notion f depersonalisa-

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 10/16

286 MAURICE BLOCH

tion fpersonhoodinkedo a detemporalisingonceptionf time1973: 391).

This couldbe a highly legant escriptionf the theory f social structure.he

secondpoint,one whichhasoften een madeby Leach amongothers,s that,thoughhe heory resentshe atternfroles ndcorporateroups s anempiricalreality, y contrast iththe deas t produces, his s not so, and, as graduatestudentsrainedn this radition avefound otheirost, t s not ll that asy oseeor hear nybitsof social tructuren the tream fevents ndpersonswhich heanthropologistitnesses.t isonlywhenwe look again t Radcliffe-Brown'seyworksn Structurendfunctionnprimitiveociety1952) thatwe realisewhythis s.Thekind fempirical henomenone s referringo s againnotthewholeofthelongconversation,utonlycertain,elativelyccasional arts f t, partswhicharealmost ntirelyn theritualmode.When Radcliffe-Brownalks froles,he

immediatelyurnsoroles smanifesteduring uch vents s sacrificesrrites epassage.Whenhetalks f descent roups, e looksat ancestor orship rtotemicrituals.When Radcliffe-Browns notdealingwith ituals e find hat e sdealingwithritualbehaviourn the widersense.He is referringo such things s in-stitutionalisedokingoravoidance. heonlypart fwhatpeople aytoeach otherin ordinaryncounterso be discussedt any length resuchthings s kinshipterms, reetingsndpolitenessormula.Now, once the bewildered ieldworkerhas realisedhatt s nthis ype fbehaviour,nd n this ype fbehaviourlone,thathe needs o look for ocial tructure,heproblems isappearnd the task smadestrangelyasy.Forexample, ites epassage re therare ccasionswhen t spossible ctually o hearpeoplegiving ists frightsnd duties, nd evenquiteliterallyoseeroles eing uton ndividualss s the aseofceremoniallothingrbodilymutilation.imilarly,escent roupsgathered or ncestorworship re-sidedoverbyelders cting s priests,an actually e photographed,nd what smore,t sextremelyrobable hat tsometime ntheproceedingst willactuallybe saidthat hey go on for ver'andare one body'.

Thismeansthat,notonly s it easyto buildup social structuresfone con-centratesnlyonritual ommunication,utalso, hatwe findn t,given ous ntheverywordsof thepeoplewe study,heacademic heory f social structure.8Now oncewe realise hat ocial tructuresonly xtractedrom itual ommuni-cation nd thatt sthefolk ocial heoryxpressedn this ype f communication,its imilarityiththe view of the world extractedy GeertzfortheBalinese,also only ooking tritual ommunication,ecomesmmediatelynderstandable.Radcliffe-Brown,ike Geertz,not usinga long conversationiew of society,simply orgotllabout heother arts f thediscourse. nlikeMalinowski, henthemagician adstoppedncantingis pells,hey idnot tay o watch he anoebuilding.

Social structure,ar rom eing ociety,urns utto be a systemfclassificationof human eingsinked o other itual ognitiveystems,uch s theritual otion

oftime.Likeritual ime t hasphenomenologicalxpressionnlyat certainmo-ments fthe ongconversation,nd nterestinglyttoo alsoseems obe differentfrom he ognitiveocial ystemf othermomentsf discourse.or example,wecontinuallyind hatuchgroupings agriculturalooperativeroups,ocalgroups,such sNuer villagesndcattle amps Evans-Pritchard940),socialrelations,uchas those fpatron nd client s describedyHobart,andlordnd share-croppern

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 11/16

MAURICE BLOCH 287

India Mayer 960), have no place n theclassificationystem xpressednritual;yet obviously, heir xistenceoo mustrequire oncepts nd a cognitive ystem

aboutpeople. n otherwords, ognitionf ociety,ike hat ftime,s double.Ontheone handtheres a system sed n normal ommunicationasedon universalnotions f time ndcognition,ndinwhichpeoplearevisualisednwayswhichseem o differittle romultureoculture, system hich s usedfor heorganisa-tion of practical ctivities,specially roductive ctivities,nd on theotherhandtheres anotherotally ifferentystem,eferredo byRadcliffe-Browns socialstructure,ased on a strangerndmuchmoreculturallypecific ystemfclassi-fication.9seealso n. 6)

The presencefthepast nthepresentsthereforene ofthe omponentsfthatotherystemf cognitionwhich s characteristicfritual ommunication,nother

worldwhich nlike hatmanifestednthe ognitiveystemfeverydayommuni-cationdoesnotdirectlyinkupwith mpirical xperiences.t s thereforeworldpeopled by invisible ntities. n the one hand roles and corporate roups in-visible alos sNadel 1957) put t)and ontheother odsandancestors,oth ypesof manifestationsusingntoeach other s is shown o subtly yFortes' tudy fthe epresentationfTallensi escent roups Fortes 949).' 0Another orldwhosetwo main characteristics,he dissolutionf time nd the depersonalisationf n-dividuals, an be linked, s I haveargued lsewhere, iththemechanics f thesemanticystemfformalised,itual ommunication.

Now, recognisinghepresence f two cognitive ystems, hichorganisewo

kinds fcommunication,ccurringtdifferentomentsn the ong conversation,solves hetheoreticalifficultieshichwe raised oncerninghose ocial theorieswhichmakeuse of notions fsuperstructurend nfrastructure.heproblemwasthat ither he nfrastructureas nottruly ndependent,ince t could only beapprehendedn the terms f the superstructure,r that twas irrelevantecauseitwas formulatedn a way that ctors ould not apprehend.f,on theother and,we realise hatwhat was meantby social structure as nota system, ut onlycertainmoments n a long conversation,haracterisedy a specific ognitivesystem,nd that nfrastructureeferso the othermomentsn the conversation,whena differentature-constrainedognitive ystems used,the difficultyis-

appears. heinfrastructureas then tsown cognitive ystemor he ctors nd tsrealisationanbe, and is, used occasionally o challengehat ther onsciousness,of aninvisibleystem reated yritual: ocial tructure.he timelesstatic ast nthepresents then hallenged y the present. his challenge annotbe achievedeasily ecause here re barriers hichusually top heputtingidebysidewithinan argument,deasand concepts oming rom he two types f communication,but hese arriersan nthe nd beovercomeBloch1975). Inotherwords, eoplemaybe extensively ystifiedy the tatic nd organic maginarymodels ftheirsocietywhichgain shadowy henomenologicalealityn ritual ommunication;

butthey lso have available o them notherource fconcepts,heuseof whichcan ead to therealisationf exploitationnd tschallenge.

IV

Now in this ast entence have umped ahead of myselfnd to explainwhat

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 12/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 13/16

MAURICE BLOCH 289

Westcoast.Their ife, ycontrast ith uchpeopleas theHazda, s full fritualand thepresencefthepast nthepresent.hiscontrastsexplained yWoodburn

in a forthcomingublication, herehepointsutthat

houghheres no funda-

mental ifferencenthewayAfrican untersndgatherersbtain heir oodfromthewaysomeAustralian boriginesbtain heirs,heres a fundamentalifferencein thewaythey reatwomen.Woodburn ays: all overAustralia,rrespectivefthe ocal ecology,menconsiderhemselveso be concernedn the ong-termro-ductive nterprisenwhich hey ssert ontrol ver ndbring p their aughters,negotiatingver theirmarriagesecidingwho the husbandwill be' (1976: I7).

Now,we know that hepoint f these ealings verwomen s notonly oobtainthemaximum umber fwivesbut, hroughhepromise fdaughterso others,to obtain ontrol verothermen, herebystablishingnd maintainingomplex

agebased anking.notherwords, hedifferenceetween heAustralianboriginesand the Hadza lies in a degreeof institutedierarchy.his explainswhy theAustralian borigines,nspite ftheir echniquesfproduction,re n this espectsimilar o theBalinese. wouldthereforeuggest,rom he nevitablynsufficientevidencehat anbepresentedere,hat he mount f social tructure'ype om-munication arieswiththe amount of hierarchy.he Hadza have very ittleinstitutedierarchyxceptbetweenmen and women atid mothers-in-lawndsons-in-lawndtheyhave ittle itual ommunicationxcept n respect ftheserelationships.heirconcepts f time are almost ntirelyresent riented. heAustralianborigines,nd theBalinese venmore, ave lotofritual ommunica-

tion or socialstructure;his ccupies surprisinglyargepartof their iscourse.Theirhighly ierarchicalocietiesnd their iewof time s,for hatpartoftheirdiscourse,ominated ythepast n thepresent.

Equally ignificantnthis espectswhatemerges rom tudies f greetingor-mulas.These are especially elevantn theextreme itualisationf their om-municativeorm,nthat heyhowwellthe onnexion etween itualommunica-tionandthecreation fthesenvisible aloscalledroles ndcorporate roups. thas sometimes eenargued hatgreetingsreessentialor ny communicationotake lacebetween eoplebut he vidence hows hat hissnot o, thatmany n-countersrenotaccompanied y greetingstall and that he ength f time n the

conversationiven ver o these ole reating roceduresaries.Again, tvaries,shas been shownbyE. Goody 1972) and Irvine I974) forwestAfrica,withthedegree fhierarchyn the ociety oncerned.

Here too theamountof socialstructure,f thepast n thepresent,f ritualcommunications correlated, iththe amountof institutionalisedierarchyndthat s what t is about. leasenote, however, hat am notproposing simpleconnexionwiththedegree f nequality.ome inequalitys oftenmanifestedsunadornedppression,ut, sWeberpointed ut, t s thenhighly nstable,ndonlybecomes tablewhen tsoriginsre hidden nd when ttransformstselfntohierarchy: legitimaterder f nequalityn an imaginary orld whichwe callsocial tructure.his sdone by the reation fa mystifiednature' nd consistingof concepts nd categories f timeand personsdivorcedfrom everyday x-perience,ndwhere nequalityakes n the ppearancef aninevitable art f anorderedystem." orexample,Marilyn trathern,n her tudy f deas oncerningwomen nthe New GuineaHighlands1972) showshowwomen re ometimes

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 14/16

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 15/16

MAURICE BLOCH 29I

trueonceptsftime. he notions ftime eldby physicistsrenotremotelyikefolk otionsof time.On theother andmypositions totally pposed othat fLevi-Straussho arguesthat aturen this espects an unorderedhenomenonnly rdered yculturen whatever

way the ogicof thoughtakes t.8 Thispoint s alreadymadebyLeach I954: I4).

9Oneof he ewdomains hich ries o mergehe wo ystemsfcognitionskinshipinceitpartakesothofpracticalroductivendreproductiveoncernsnd of the rrigationfauthorityhroughociety.hismergings nevitablynsuccessfulnd t seems o me to ieatthe ack f he istinctionhich ortes asmade nvarious laces nd nvarious ays etweenthedomestic omain nd thepolitico-juralomainFortes969). This merging ouldalsoaccount or herecurrentnconclusiveontroversiesn anthropologyhether inship asabiological aseornot.We wouldexpect aturalonstraintso be evidentndomesticinshipandnegatedn thepolitico-juralomain.

10Thispointsparticularlyowerfullyutby . KopytoffI97I)."I This s discussedn a more xtendedashionn M. Bloch I975).

REFERENCES

Ayer,A.J. 973. The entraluestionf hilosophy.ondon:Weidenfeld Nicolson.Berlin, . I972. Speculationnd thegrowth f ethnobotanicalomenclature.anguagen

Society., 5i-86.& P. Kay 969. Basic olor erms.erkeley: niv.ofCaliforniaress.D. E. Breedlove& P. H. Raven 973. General rinciplesfclassificationndnomen-

claturen folk iology.Am.Anthrop.5, 2I4-42.

Black,M. I959. Linguisticelativity:heviews fBenjaminee Whorf. hil.Rev.68, 28-38.

Bloch,M. 974. Symbol,ong nddance r sreligionn extremeormf raditionaluthority?Eur.J. Sociol.

I975. Introduction.nPoliticalanguagend ratoryn traditionalocieties.ondon,New

York:Academic ress.Boas,F. I966. Introduction.nHandbookfAmericanndiansed.)P. Holder. incoln:Univ.ofNebraska ress.

Brown,R. & E. Lenneberg954. Astudyf anguagendcognition..abn. ocial sychol.9,454-62.

Bulmer, . I967. Why s cassowaryot bird?A problem f oologicalaxonomymong heKaram ftheNew Guineahighlands. an N.S.) 2, 5-25.

1968. Wormsthat roak ndothermysteriesf Karamnatural istory. ankind62I-39.

I970. Which ame irst,he hickenrthe gghead? In1Echangest ommunicationseds)J.Pouillon& P. Maranda. heHague:Mouton.

Douglas, M. I966. Puritynd danger: n analysisf conceptsfpollutionndtaboo. ondon:Routledge& KeganPaul.

I970. Naturalymbols:xplorationsncosmology.ondon:Barrie& Rockliffe.I975. Implicit eanings:ssaysnanthropology.ondon:Routledge& KeganPaul.Durkheim,. I9I2. Lesformesle'mentairese a viereligieuse:e systemeot6miquenAustralie.

Paris: Alcan.Evans-Pritchard,. E. I940. TheNuer. ondon:OxfordUniv. Press.Firth, . I964. Essays n social rganisationndvalues Lond. Sch. Econ. Monogr. Social

Anthrop.).ondon:Athlone ress.Fortes, . I949. Theweb fKinshipmongheTallensi,ondon:OxfordUniv. Press.

i969.Kinshipnd he ocialrder,heegacyfLewis enry organ.ondon:RoutledgeKeganPaul.

Geertz, . I973. Person, ime nd conductnBali. Reprintedn The nterpretationf ulture.New York: BasicBooks.

Gellner,. I968. Thenew dealism.nProblemsn he hilosophyf cience.eds) . Lakatos A.

Musgrave msterdam:orthHolland ublications.Godelier,M. I966. Rationalite't rrationalite'neconomie'.aris:Maspero.I973. Horizons,rajets arxistesn nthropologie.aris:Maspero.

Goody,E. I972. 'Greeting',Begging'and the presentationf respect he nterpretationfritualed.)J.La Fontaine.ondon:Tavistock.

Hobart,M. I975. Oratorsndpatrons: wo types fpoliticaleader n Balinese illage ociety.InPoliticalanguagendoratoryn traditionalocietyed.) M. Bloch.London,New York:Academic ress

8/6/2019 Bloch1977The Past and the Present in the Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bloch1977the-past-and-the-present-in-the-present 16/16

292 MAURICE BLOCH

Hobart,M. inpress. adi,puns ndthe ttributionfresponsibility.nNaturalymbolsn outheastAsia ed.)G. Milner.

Hoijer,H. (ed.) 954. Languagenculture,hicago:Univ. Press.

Irvine, . 974. StrategiesfstatusmanipulationntheWolofgreetings.nExplorationsn theethnographyf peakingeds)R. Bauman& J. Sherzer. ambridge: niv. Press.Kay, P. I975. Synchronicariabilityndiachronichangen basiccolorterms. anguagen

Society, 25I-70.

Kopytoff,. I97I. AncestorsndeldersnAfrica. frica1, I29-42.Leach, . R. I954. Politicalystemsfhighlandurma.ondon:Bell.

I96I. Two essays oncerninghe ymbolic epresentationftime.Reprintedn Re-thinkingnthropologyLond. Sch.Econ.Monogr. ocialAnthrop.2). London: AthlonePress.

I976. Culturend ommunication,ambridge: niv. Press.Lee,R. B. I972. The !KungBushmenfBotswana.nHuntersnd atherersodayed.)M. G.

Bicchieri. ew York.Lefebre, . I966. SociologieeMarx, aris:Presses niversitaireseFrance.

Levi-Strauss,. I962. La pense'eauvage.aris:Plon.-~ I966. Du mielux cendres.aris: Plon.Lowrie,R. H. I937. Historyf thnologicalheory.erkeley: niv.ofCaliforniaress.Malinowski,. I922. Argonautsf heWesternacific.ondon:Routledge& KeganPaul.Marx,K. & F.Engels.970. TheGermandeology.ondon:Laurence& Wishart.Mayer,A. I960. Caste ndkinshipncentralndia. ondon:Routledge& KeganPaul.Meillassoux, . I967. Recherche 'unniveaude determinationans a societe ynegetique.

L'Hommet a Socie't6, 95-I05.

- I972. From roductionoreproduction.con. oc. , 93-I05.

Nadel,S. I95I. The heoryf ocial tructure.ondon:Cohen& West.Piaget, . 968. Le structuralisme.aris:Presses niversitaireseFrance.Radcliffe-Brown,. R. I957. Structurend unctionnprimitiveociety:ssaysndaddresses.

London:Cohen& West.

-~ I957. A naturalciencef ociety.ew York: FreePress.Robins, . H. I97I. Malinowski,irth nd he Context fSituation'.nSocialnthropologyndlanguageed.)E. Ardener.Ass. ocialAnthrop.rit.Commonw.,Monogr.0). London:Tavistock.

Rosch,F. I975. Basic bjectsnnaturalategoriesWorking apers ftheLanguage ehaviourResearch aboratory).erkeley: niversityf California.

Strathern,. I972. Womennbetween:femaleolesna maleworld, ount agen, ew Guinea.London,New York: Seminarress.

Terray,. I969. Le marxismeevantes ocie'te'srimitives.aris:Maspe'ro.Tumbull, . I966. Waywardervants.ondon:Eyre& Spottiswood.Whorf, . L. I956. Languagehoughtnd eality.oston,Mass.:M.I.T. Press.Willis,R. I974. Man andbeast. ondon:Hart-DavisMcGibbon.Woodburn, . 968a.An ntroductiono Hazdaecology.nMan the untereds)R. B. Lee &

I. DeVore.Chicago:Aldine.I968b.Stabilitynd flexibilitynHazda residentialroupings.n Man the untereds)R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine.

---- I972. Ecology,nomadicmovementnd the compositionf the ocal group monghuntersndgatherers.n Man,settlementnd urbanismeds) P. J. Ucko et al. London:Duckworth.

I976. Huntersndgatherersoday nthe econstructionfthepast. aper reparednadvance or articipationn theBurgWartensteinymposium o. 70.

forthcoming.inimal olitics,he oliticalrganisationf heHadzaofnorth anzania.InFestschriftor rofessorsaacSchapera.