Social Anthropology

Barnard

Dutch anthropology

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:00:31 | Social Anthropology

Dutch anthropology has a distinguished and unique history, and there is no shortage of English-language publications aimed at explaining it to the outside world (e.g., Kloos and Claessen 1975, 1981, 1991). Essentially, there are two main distinctive anthropological traditions in the Netherlands, which in that country are commonly labelled 'cultural anthropology' (including structural anthropology) and 'sociology of non-Western societies'.

Arguably, Dutch cultural anthropology began in colonial Netherlands East Indies, where senior colonial officers of the nineteenth century realized the advantages of recording languages and customs of the indigenous population for their administrative purposes. Chairs were established at Leiden in 1877 and at Amsterdam in 1907, and the incumbents, though at first *evolutionist in persuasion, promoted a long association between colonial administration and ethnographic research. The structuralist tradition, which many outside Holland regard as the essence of Dutch anthropology, took hold in the 1920s and especially the 1930s, and was led by the work of F.A.E.van Wouden, G.W.Locher, and especially f J.P.B.de Josselin de Jong and later his nephew P.E.de Josselin de Jong, among others. Early writings in the tradition were mainly in Dutch, but English translations of the classic texts are included in two important collections (Josselin de Jong 1977, 1984).

Dutch structuralism differs from *structuralism as we usually think of it (i.e., French structuralism) in that the former postulates only structures which are unique to fculture areas or regions, not to all humankind. Such culture areas are known within Dutch anthropology as 'fields of ethnological (or anthropological) study' (ethnologisch studievelden). Each is defined by a set of common features known as its 'structural core' (structurele kern). These might include, e.g., fpatrilineal descent, the fcirculating connubium and fhypogamy in the case of the Malay Archipelago, which is the classic example of a field of ethnological study. Each distinct culture within such a 'field' will have differences, but such differences can be accounted for with the larger structural pattern. The motto of Dutch structuralism, like that of the Indonesian nation-state which grew from the same cultural source, might well be taken as 'Unity in Diversity'. This perspective owes much to studies in Indonesian languages, and the idea of culture having structures analogous to language has been much a part of the tradition, which has parallels not only with French structuralism but also with American fcognitive anthropology.

In the last few decades the structuralist tradition in the Netherlands has been in decline, and ftransactionalist, *Marxist, fapplied and *development anthropology have all been prominent. In some universities development anthropology is more-or-less equated with the idea of 'sociology of non-Western societies', and includes studies of policy issues, health and nutrition, agricultural systems and even *ethnoscience—the last being an area of overlap between the structuralist and non-Western sociology traditions. Ethnographic interests which are prominent include Africa, Latin America and the Mediterranean, as well as Indonesia. Because of the centralized and bureaucratic nature of the Dutch university system, both regional and theoretical interests are concentrated in different departments according to agreed guidelines drawn up between the departments on a national level. In spite of great differences today in theoretical approach and interest, Dutch anthropology thus retains its unity through these efforts and through its own apparent self-identity as a national institution.

ALAN BARNARD

See also: regional analysis and regional comparison

Anthropology Archive