A.R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN
W.E.H. Stanner
By the death of Eneritus Professor A.R. Radcliffe-Brown in London on 24th
October 1955 British anthropology has lost its most distinctive and influential
thinkor since Tylor. Perhaps no other anthropologist taught so widely and
to such effect.  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak of him at this
nenorial meeting as I knew him.
I first net Radcliffe-Brown in 1926, three yoars before I became his
student at the University of Sydney. He had arrived not long since from
Capotown, where he had launched an anthropology of a then novel kind. I
was much struck by his mnner, appearance and lucidity at a meeting whore
sone difficult subjects were under discussion. He was then in his middle
4,' s, a nan of distinguishod address.  He had cone to Sydney to found a new
department, and to be tho first professor of anthropology in the Corionwealth.
Ho soon became the contre of a circle of scientists, intellectuals,
artists and musicians.  He did not court popularity, and was, indeed, not
universally popular) but in his own circle he was hold in esteem and affection.
He was a friend of some of the men and women whose work and influence were
then, and have since been, of nuch importance in Australian culture and science.
One of his friends was Chris Brennan, one of the nost distinguished poots of
the century, who is regrettably less known outside Australia than his
merits entitle.
At this time Radcliffe-Brown still had the gay temperament for which he is
roemebered at Trinity College, Cambridge. Some of his nore staid colleagues
thought hin Bohemian. All this meant was that he lived alone in a flat with
a grand piano, drank wine, sonetines gave lectures in a frock-coat and striped
pants, affected a monocle, know artists and actors and other such people, and
was taken up by Government Houset I an afraid that he was outside the
sterootypes of academic Australia.  He was not the grave, learned professor;
or the unworldly professor; or the practical-ninded professor turning out
practical-ninded students in a narrow professional mould; or even the eccen-
tric professor in a tradition that Australians, being British, also like,
occasionally. Ho was gay, witty, and social-minded as well as learned, and
airily indifforent to the fact that there were many dull pedagogues who did
not care for his style. Many of his views were, or seened, startingly dif-
ferent, and this gave a convenient focus for the sma11 dislikes of narrow
people.
Radcliffe-Brown's views wore, in fact, respectably traditional, but in a
tradition of which many of the social disciplinos in Australian Universities
then know little.  'Anthropology' was acceptable enough (although I roemnber
one profossor who said witheringly, "All anthropologists can do is come back
and say what they sue"). But Radeliffo-Brown had been heard to call it at
times ' comparative sociology'. This was too nuch. Everyono know that when
116
law, history, econorics, denography and political science wero through with
social affairs, there was-nothing loft for 'sociology'. Fbw thought sociolo-
gy va8 Ipossible'. To this day no Australian University has a dopartnont of
sociology. Radcliffo-Brown smilingly endured the suspicion that ho was nix-
ing anthropology and charlatanry.
I bogin this way to give, in what can only bo a brief sketch, sono idea
of tho circumstances of friondship and opposition in which Radcliffe-Brown
was conplotitg the systoe of thought which wo now associato with hin and
loaying a long-rememberod improssion by his attractive porsonality, incisivo
viowpoint, and skill as a toachor. No ono, thon or sinco, respondod to hin
with noutrality or indifforonce.  'Solidarity' and 'opposition' wore presont
both in his life and his syston of thoory.
When I became his student, threo years after mooting hin, ho was con-
ploting The Social Orfanization of Australian Tribes, To roe, and most of
his studonts, his loctures woro a revelation. Most other subJects, by conpari-
son, seomed dull.  It was not nere novelty that attracted us, but tho man and
the word. Radcliffe-Brown never used notoes during locturos; ho always seenod
to speak extompore, but ho cotanded dotail and principlo with fluent oase.
The offoct was telling. We all had tho fooling of I system' in all he said,
a system that sooeod to us clear, econonical and intollectualy satisfying.
It is all thero, of course, in the sparse published papers, but in a forn
that is too spare, too abstract, too compressod to be able to ovoke the roe-
ponse that cane from the spoken word. It is a pity that his undorgraduato
lectures wore nover printed. But, as we all know, he was not oagor to go on
paper at length. Much of his doopost influence lios in an oral tradition.
Why did Radcliffe-Brown not writo noro? There are two antecodent questions,
The first is: what is the standard?  Certainly not one of volumne  What ho
did write will exercise an influence out of all proportion to its scale.
Professors Evans-Pritchard and Eggan spoke for many when thoy wrote in their
introduction to Structure and Function in Prinitivo Socioty, a colloction of
some of his papers:
He has not, considering that ho has been engaged in
teaching and research in social anthropology for almost fifty
yoars, written as nuch as nost porsons of his academic oninenco.
What he has written, howover, has been faultloss. Wo do not
mean by this that we necessarily accept his nothods or conclusions
in detail, but rather that tho point of viow he expressed could
not have been bettor oxpressod. Each of tho essays is perfoct
in conception and expression, and they are tied together by a
consistency and direction which is rare in nodorn anthropology.
Tho second question is about the typo of publication. There are per-
haps 17 papors of distinction, the distillation of much travel, diroct ob-
sorvation, a wide toaching exporience, and careful thought. They are not
Just collations of field obsore tions, or more substantial papors of linited
theoretical range. They belong to an unfbniliar order, what I would tern
'koystono' papers.
117
The classic study of Australian social organization is an oxonple. No
work on Australia, bofore or since, can compoto with it in what it sots out
to do. I do not deprociato the work of men liko Fison and Howitt, Morgan,
Roth, Spencer and Gillen and others in making this obsorvation, which also
includes Malinowski' s adnirablo study of the aboriginal fily, and any work
since published.  I havo heard Radcliffe-Brown' s contribution undervaluod by
foolish people who soen to fool that it in somo way casts a shadow on thoir
own. Tho truth is that, until the study appearod, our insight into soveral
natters was no nore than partial. In the study, the ossence of Radcliffe-Brown
mind and nothod appear. Observation and reflection many years boforo-who had
workod in Australia as early as 1910-had suggested an hypothesis: that there
was a significant corrtlation betwoon marriago-forms and kinship torminology.
He put it to the tost-na long and arduous effort beginning in 1913-and not
only, as wo know, confirmod it brilliantly, but at tho sano tine greatly ex-
panded our undorstanding of local organization, the kinship and descent sys-
tons as a whole, the overlaid 'soction' and '-subsection' systens, and thu
totonic religion, whilo placing a typological framo ovor the thon known world
of aboriginal Australia. As a nothodical study, it was magnificont. It
not only mado senseo of what was still, in many ways, nonsense, but led diroct-
ly into a wider scheme of interpreting many classes of social rolations through
the now well-known concopts of 'structure', 'function' and 'process'.
-It is this last point that sooes to me tho nost significant aspect of
the scant papors. They are consistently of one piece. Therc are unmistakeable
touches about then: an unusual inductive sweep; a strong power of generaliza-
tion; and an anatomy of clear deductivo theory. Radcliffe-Brown understood as
few of us do the truo economy of scienco, the maing of only necessary dis-
tinctions, without a mass of words.
Sevgral papers are very nearly as indispensable as the Australian papor
of 1930. -Among then I would put Tho Mothor's Brother in South Africa, The
Studyof Kinship System, On Joking Relationships ,oic               Theory-of
Totemisn, Social Sanctions, and Prinitive Law.
I would thus maintain that the monograph is not a good standard by which
to judge Radcliffo-Brownt s contribution. I believe we shall pass out of tho
period in which an anthropologist night woll be described as 'the scientist
nost likely to writo six nonographs'   Radcliffo-Brown' s papers contain the
ossence of nany such texts. They are not in any way lessened by having been
kept, with true scientific economy, as papers.
If I were asked, then, why he did not write more, I would say that he had
preciso and limited objects, and that he wrote to those objects.  In that
sense, he seems to me to have writton sufficiently.
What were those objects? The Association of Social Anthropologists, the
British professional body, asked each of its members to state his interests.
Radcliffe-Brown replied with one word, 'nethodology'.  It was not a pose. It
was a principle, one might airest say a passion. in ny understanding, he
meant by 'mthodology' three things:   imaginative inductl.ve thought; rigorous
copcirative inquiry; and the arrangenent of the product of inquiry under
118
theoretical concepts allowing necossary distinctions to bo drawn. Each
of work he did vindicates that conception. He insisted on comparison:
The study of a single society may provide materials for
camparative study, or it =y afford occasion for hypothese1,'
which then need to be tested by reference to other societies;
it cannot give denonstrated results.
This was one roason why he was not drawn too strongly to nonographic
study.  In some sonse, it also explains why nuch of his work deals only with
taspeotsl as has sometimes been said. He sinply took the view that there is
no way in which 'wholoe societies can be compared as 'wholos'. His main
interest was in contributing to a comparative norphology by nethods akin
to those of the natural scionces. For this reason his main (but by no means
his only) interest becane the classification of types of Istructural systemt.
He did not think of this as calling for a 'school' of anthropology.
Indeed, he disliked the idea of 'schools' in this sense. "there is no place
for orthodoxies and hoterodoxies in science.  Nothing is more pernicious
than attempts to establish adherence to doctrines."
When I became Malinowski' s student, Radcliffe-Brown made no coment,. was
in no whit less friendly, remained intorested in ny work, and sought later to
have ne appointed to his own department, though he and Malinowski had ontirely
different conceptions of the discipline. I think of hin as a man of large
mind. If 'schools' are appearing, it is not of his doing. If, in Anerica,
it appears that British 'structuralisn' is beconing such a 'school', you my
be sure that it was not of his wish. His testinony is clear. The study of
'social structure' is only a branch of anthropology, though an inportant
branch, the one in which we can at present be nost scientific in the sense
of being comparative and classificatory.
Modern anthropology has becone a discipline of alternative approaches,
competing insights, differing objects of attention, incongruent isolates, and
unconforriable franes of inquiry. We seen to be confronted with three very
distinct anthropologies: one which is 'structure' -centred; one which is
'culture'-contred; a third which is 'personality' -contred. Nono conforms,
in my understanding, to Radcliffe-Brown' s approach, and having known hin for
over a qatsr of a century I my be held eligible to have an inforned opinion.
I think he would havo rjoectod the notion of 'a scionce of social structure'
in the sense in which I think that phrase was used recently by one British
anthropologist, as he would have rejected the notion of 'structure' being a
frame of inquiry capablo of dealing with 'the whole culture' of a givon people.
Radcliffe-Brown pointed out that ". . .each scientist starts from the
work of his predocessors, finds pr6blens which he believes to be significant,
and by observation and reasoning ondeavours to make sone contribution to a
growing body of theory.."  His own indebtedness he always mde clear. Spencer,
Durkheinmand Rivers influoncod him greatly and, in turn, ho dopartod fron them.
He onceo complained that too many anthropologists depend on what others say
about par'tioulr thinkers.  "Spencer is condrnmed by non who nevor read a line
*119
of Spencer in the original."  I find, too widely, tho viow among younger
anthropologists that Radcliffe-Brown had no other leading concopt but that
of 'social structuro'.
I do not think that he saw his own work in a grand light, though thore
are some, including myself, who do. His systen aroused nuch controversy, as
we know. Much that he said was seriously challongod and as seriously mis-
understood. Becauso of this, he gave rather nore time than, in rotrospoct,
SOONs wise to elucidating two of his main caacopts, tstructure' and 'function'.
The third of the trilogy, 'process', was left somewhat lightly troatod. And
a fourth, 'v alue', which together with ' process' has great heuristic importance
in bringing his total schene of interpretation into perspective, foll a little
to one side even in his own later writings. II my own understanding, over
many years, 'valuo' remains cardinal to all the others.
I may consider this concept.very briefly.  It is derived in a methodical
way fron two postulates, one an hypothesis ('interest') and the other a prin-
ciple ('adJustment' or full or approximate 'convergence' of interests). By
'interest' he means a relation between a sentient 'subject' and an 'object'
(which may be another pevrson). If a subjoct has an interost in an object,
the relation can be stated by saying that the object has a ' valuo' for the
subject. That is, the subject, a person, or a group, places a 'value' on
scmothing. It is thus an act of 'valuing'.   Interest and value are correlative
terns. They refer to the two sidoes of an asyrmetrical relation. The relati,on
of 'social' value does not arise from sinilar interosts.  It arises from
either the nutual interest of persons in one another; or in one or more
coanon objects, or fror a conbination of both. It does so through an adjust-
nent of respective interests by a convergence of those interests, or by a
limitation of the conflict that my ensue fron continuously divergent intorests
When two or nore persons have a comon interost in an object, that object can
be said to have 'a social value' for the porsons so associatod. 'Ritual'
value is one of the social values. Interests and values aro determinants of
social relations and thus, ultimately, of 'social structuro' and 'procoss'..
All behaviour that we reoognize, broadly, as purposive, is thus behaviour
initially ruled by ' interest' and, at the societal lovel, by 'value'.
Through this concept, Radcliffo-Brown has stated a fundamontal thesis;
a thesis of how asy8mtry betwoon individual persons becomes social symmetry
in terns of ' relations' . If we follow his thought carefully, it throws light
on his use of other concopts. It frees the concept of 'structure' fron some
of the 'static' enphasis it has scetinos been said, by way of criticism, to
have. If in a society, the acts of 'valuing' becone established and stable,
the stabilization of the 'relations' followso When he talks cof the 'actually
existing notwork of relations' he is thus referring, in the last analysis, to
the placing on coon things of constant 'value',. A 'statict structure is a
description of stationary conditions of sentiment, thought and life revealed
in constant 'value' . It also clarifies one aspect of his idiosyncratic use
of 'social function' by which he neans the contribution something (e.g. an
institution) makes to the maintenance of the systen of which it is part.
This 'function' is the part it plays in maintaining the 'value' placed upon it.
Thues 'endurij4g etructure' roally neans ' constant functioning' and '.constant
120
functioning' really neans 'stable evaluating'.
Radcliffe-Brown left parts of his system somewhat undeveloped, and
there are many difficulties within it, especially with 'social structure'.
But the whole approach has a stimulus and an appeal far fron exhausted.
There are still ways of making theoretical extensions fron it into quite un-
expected fields. It remains for me the most satisfyring approach that has yet
been devised for those who take the view that thero can be a theoretical
natural science of human society.
What the user mkes of it deponds on the conception of 'natural science'.
If the aim behind the conception is to produce goneralizations which, it is
thought, should be of a kind that can be placed in the hands of a body of
men to correct social error or injustice, Radcliffe-Brown' s nothod and frame
of inquiry aro unlikely to be found in any irmuediate sonse satisfying.
This neans only that the olenent of social philosophy in the approach is
heavily disciplined.  Malinowskits 'science of applications' seemed jejune
to Radcliffe-Brown. He saw incroasingly the need for a few people to do,
singlo-nindedly and patiently, things essential to the discipline that
were not being done as actively as he thought necessary: the systoeatic
comparisons of those aspects of society which, at present, we know how to
deal with nost effectively. Such tasks appeal perhaps only to a minority,
and to a cortain kind of mind; the kind of mind to which taxonony, typology,
correlation and other systonatics give aesthetic pleasure as well as intollectur
al reward. This is by no neans a dying tradition, though it rnay flag from
time to time. Sone men who would be adnirably suited to it are drawn to
other interests, or feel too strongly the pressures of careers, opportuni-
ties, or the subtle tenptations to be superficially 'productive' by a string
of publications-artfully contrived in more literary than scientific form.
Radcliffe-Brown worked steadily, with a smll but significant output, towards
a knowledge of ". . .those invariant general characters which belong to all
hunan societies past, presont and future." Where this tradition survives, we
owe not a little of the credit to him, though not, of course, to him alone.
A distinction is sonotines drawn botween 'field' anthropologists and
'archair' anthropologists, and Radcliffo-Brown is sometis placed in the
second group. I think that he lies across this antithesis. The 'arm-chair'
scholar is a reality in anthropology: Sir James Frazer is perhaps the
classic oxample. Radcliffe-Brown was, rather, the teacher-theoretician
with his foet firnly grounded in 'the field'.  It would be invidious to
identify his polar opposites.
His fieldwork in the Andamans was competent; in Australia, measured by
the conditions, better than that. Where he was outstanding was in the ap-
praisal of what he and others saw. And whore he was more disciplined than
mny others was in his refusal to fashion a body of fact, large or small, to
literary rather than scientific vogues of presentation.
If, in other respoots, a true contrast might be made it would be with
such an anLthropologist as Bronislaw Malinowski. I had the honour to be a
121
student of both at their prime. I do not wish to try to corpare then save
in one respect; tho kind of anthropology they represonted. Radcliffe-Brown
took the view that they had different conceptions of the discipline:
WhileI have definod social anthropology as the study
of human society, there are sono who defino it as the study
of culture. It night perhaps be thought that this difference
of definition is of minor inportance. Actually, it loads to
two different kinds of study, botweon which it is hardly
possiblo to obtain agreonent in the formulation of problems.
Malinowski was rospectful of Radcliffo-Brown' s concopticn, but I
should say was less detached. He clearly belioved, as he was entitled to,
that there was only one 'good' anthropology, his own. His thought was large
and embracing, and was expoundod with the greatest skill, but it did not
add up to a 'systoem in the sense in which Radoliffo-Brown' s did. This is
puzzling, for he had a training in natural science whereas, as far as I an
aware, Radcliffe-Brown had not. The difforence was in the cast of their
rmentalities, not in the quality. It was perhaps likew the differonce that
in the military art reflects itself in the capacity for tactical and strategi
thought. In this figure, Malinowski was a tactician of the major scale,
Radcliffe-Brown a strategist of entire campaigns. Malinowski was a suporb
expositor of departments of 'culture', Radcliffe-Brown a lucid analyst of
' systens' . The defects or the merits of both become visible only if their
work is measured by what they did not seek to do. But it is inherent in the
study of 'culture' that tho attack is on the wholo country of the human
mind and, for this reason, it cannot hope to succeed as woll as, and is
apt to seem pretentious by comparison with, a more linited ain where theory
has a compass. In the interlocuto'y rolo, as teacher, Malinowski, and
RAdcliffe-Brown were really outstanding. And a discipline can be no better,
than its teachers.
Even if Radcliffe-Brown had never written a line, he would have had
fanous cffect as a toacher. I have nentioned his singularly pleasing nanner,
his rapport with most students, and his air of authority, not a dogmatic air,
but one of profound conviction as to me:thod. I have the clearest eonory,
after quartor of a contury, of things he said in class that afterwards
appoared in texts:
Definition lies at tho end rather than at the beginning
of an inquiry.
.When you disagree, as a first stop dofine as precisely
as possible the ground of differenco.
There is no escape fron classification. It is tho
essential method of science.
It is not a question of whether this theory or that
thoory is correct. It is a question of whether a general
theory of this kind is possible.
122
Theso truisms arc never truisns to students, exposed to social doctrino,
hearing then for the first time. At a time when we, as students, wore still
taught in toers of economic n, the laws of progress, the unthinkableness
of war, the cake of custom, and other such fictions appearing in other dis-
ciplinos, many of his sayings wore ofton as disturbing as thoy wore enlighten-
ing. In my own case, he actualy incciodod my undorstanding of economic
theory, and it was some tinm bofore I could make a bridgo.
Radcliffo-Brown had a skill in turning tho teacher-student relation into
something nore than norely profossional. I think ho proferred smll groups
Of selocted students, to whom he could become tutor, fitting nothod to persoon.
This is a good English tradition which is less and less possiblo as univer-
sities grow in scalo. In such circumstances, he was at his bost. Unlike
Sir Jaues Frazer, he liked tho cut-and-thrust of debate and disagreooent. I
nevor saw him ruffled though I bolievo there woro sone who did, and he could
be very cutting if he choso. But I think ho bolieved what he said:
All that a teacher can do is to a8si8t the student in
learning to understand and use tho sciontific nmthod. It is
not his business to mako disciples.
In my own case, I can say that he novor made any such attempt, but he
was human enough to be glad of adhesion to his own viewpoint. For my part,
as someone whDse life and thought, at an inprossionable time, he touched and
changed, I can only say that I amu grateful for an abiding influence.
If one tries to take in the broad scale of anthropological thought as
it stands at present, one cannot help but feol that nuch re-thinking about
aim and method has becono necessary. Perhaps from that may emerge a body of
suxmnations that will serve as a world anthropology. We do not soom at
prosent to be in such a position. Most of us still seen to be working within.,
not beyond, the formulations of men like Boas, Kroebor, Sapir, Lowio,
Malinowski, Thurnwald and Radcliffe-Brown. Those viewpoints had a force by
no means yet exhausted. They also had a span, and an orudition, that in sone
sense are disappearing fron the anthropological scene. Yet one sometimes
senses in modern and 'sophisticated' toxts, not so nuch a pretence that
anthropology is a formed science, as a lack of sufficient recognition that
it is not. Radcliffe-Brown did not think of his work as in any sense con-
plete or finished. Ho did not ovon wish it to bo popular, or believe it
likely to produco rosults in any way spoctacular. Of his interest in 'structur
al form' he said it ". . .would certainly not be an anthropological best
Seller," but the 'summations' of which I speak rost essentially on concoptions .
of this type. Yet I trust that he will not bo ronembered only in terms of
the 'structure' and 'function' concepts, for there are other idoas in his
work Just as important. I rather feel that we have heard perhaps too nuch
too soon of the two conccpts for which he is notod: too nuch, since they
seen to produce too easily an uncritical addiction in forms which would have
enbarrassed their originator; too soon, in that they are sumaitions for which
the discipline is plainly not ready.
123
Radcliffe-Brown had a ful..and rounded lifo: nuch travel (to all tho
continents), rmany friends, many distinguished studonts who were glad to call
hira Inaster'l and an authontic knowledge that he had nade a najor contribution
to his discipline. At the end of his life, his circun tances wore not easy,
and ho knew the meaning of personal loneliness.  He encountered persistent
opposition and misunderstanding, and no ono I have known receivod the one
nore equably or tried so hawrd to avoid the other. His personal life had its
noasure of disappointment. But all the honour in the professional power of
British anthropology had boon accorded hin before he died, and I an sure that
in the just and generous tradition of Anerican anthropology there will be
nany who think his work of lasting value.
Perhaps I nay quote froa his own work a sentence that night well serve
hin as a nenorial:
The only reward I have sought I think I have in sane
neasure found-something of tho kind of insight into the
nature of the world of which wo are part that only the patient
pursuit of the nethod of natural science can afford.
124
ENDNOTE
1. Road beforo tho Departontal Seminar, Dopartnent of Anthropology,
Univorsity of California, Borkeloy, January 4, 1956.
125