Review: Neglected Master: A. M. Hocart Author(s): Thomas O.

Beidelman Reviewed work(s): Kings and Councillors: An Essay in the Comparative Anatomy of Human Society by Arthur Maurice Hocart ; Rodney Needham Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Winter, 1972), pp. 311-316 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/202292 Accessed: 30/11/2008 16:44
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 at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. 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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Interdisciplinary History.

http://www.jstor.org

Thomas 0. Beidelman

Neglected

Master

A. M. Hocart
Kings and Councillors:An Essay in the ComparativeAnatomy of Human

Society.By Arthur Maurice Hocart, edited with an introduction by

Rodney Needham (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, I970) 318 pp.
$13.50

Hocart'sprofoundlyoriginalbook was firstpublishedin Cairoin 1936, three years before his death. This new edition is most welcome to scholars who have admired Hocart's other writingsI but who have found it difficultto securethis work, perhapshis finest achievement.It is hoped that this reissue,with its long and admirableintroductionby Needham, will help Hocart gain the deserved recognition he was denied in his lifetime. One may approachthis study from two perspectives:It may be regardedin terms of its place in the history of social anthropological thought, for althoughHocartwas never popular,he influencedimportant contemporary scholars such as Needham, Sir Edward EvansEdmundR. Leach,LouisDumont, and ClaudeLcvi-Strauss. Pritchard, More important,it may still be read in Hocart'sown right,just as we still profit from re-readingEmile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss,and Max Weber. Many of Hocart's most searchingsuggestions are still unexplored, and his individualisticstyle and original method of exposition instill in the sympatheticreadera new perspectiveand freshattitudeof mind toward socialissues.Whateverhis faults,Hocartis never trivialin his choice of problems,and his writing is devoid of cant. His trenchant, allusivestyle encouragesthe diligentreaderto engagehim in an imaginary mental dialogue. In this, he is an ideal mentor for studentsaspiring toward masteryof comparativesocial anthropology.
of ThomasO. Beidelmanis AssociateProfessor Anthropologyat New York University. He is the author of Matrilineal Peoplesof EasternTanzania(London, 1967) and The (New York, 1971), and has publishednumerousarticleson EastAfricanethnoKaguru graphy.
I

andCouncillors (Cairo, 1936); (trans.E. J. Levy andJ. Auboyerfrom English),Les Castes (Paris, 1938), publishedposthumouslyin English as Caste(London, I95o); (ed. Lord posthumously; (London,I952),published Raglan), TheLifeGivingMythandOther Essays (ed. Lord Raglan), Social Origins(London, .1954), published posthumously;Rodney Maurice Hocart Needham, A Bibliography Arthur (1883-1939)(Oxford, 1967). of

A. M. Hocart, Kingship (London, 1927); The Progressof Man (London, I933); Kings

312

[ THOMAS

O. BEIDELMAN

The subject of Kings and Councillors the origin and evolution is of government, a topic of interestto any historian.Hocart'sapproach provides instruction in the relation between current anthropological in structuralism history. (He precedesLevi-Strauss structural and analysis by twenty years.) Hocart's problem involves three interdependent issues:(I) What kind of methodology may be usedto get at the primary sourcesof an institutionsuch as government?(2) What is the natureof these primary factors? (3) What can these factors disclose about the nature of man and society? In Hocart'swork, the comparativemethod (the study of various differentsocieties)cannot be separatedfrom historicalproblems. The former providessolutionsnot directly discernible the latter. Hocart by observesthat one cannot apprehendthe earlieststagesof society by any direct method since there were no written records concerning the initiation of government. Furthermore,where ethnographicinformation dealing with a preliteratepeople suggests conditions similar to precivilized stages of development elsewhere, even the processesreported by the people themselvesmay demand further interpretation. For example,while conductingfieldworkin Fiji,Hocartfound that the royal clan was subdivided into four units forming two groups, one to subordinate the other in many respects.Local informantsprovided a historical account of how this had come about. However, plausible furthercomparativeresearchdisclosedthat a similarpatternwas found throughoutthis areaof the Pacific,and even far beyond. The particular explanationprovidedby oralhistorymay have been historically"true," the but it did not sufficeto explainstructurally necessityor tendencyfor dualisticgroups on such a broad geographic scale. With asymetrical, this in mind, Hocart writes: "The historianwho trustsexclusively to recordsnever reachesfurtherback than incidentswhich look like the beginning, but are really episodes in growth" (25), and "Absence of recordsmeans nothing: comparativeevidence alone can decide" (24). For Hocart, it is these deeper levels of form or structurethat must be accountedfor, and the comparativemethod is the meansfor doing so: or "By comparingall the descendants derivativeswe can eliminateall the differences,leaving only what they have in common, and that is presumablywhat they hold from the lost original"(I6). In his admirableintroduction,Needham notes that Hocart sought explanationsfor the universalsin human behavior and society, and that two possiblederivationsof common customhave been perennially considered:diffusionfrom some initial source,and formativeprocesses

NEGLECTED

MASTER

| 313

in inherent all societies to the universal natureof all men and all due societies. to both factors,but he clearly Hocartwas keenlysensitive recognizedthat the former explanation ultimatelyrequiredsome in consideration termsof the secondto which it would alwaysbe reduced. Theseissues remain central all socialanthropology. to in For Hocart,as for Durkheim, mustfirstbe analyzed societies detailwithintheirown contexts; thisis only a preliminary but analytical stageleadingto comparison out the morebasicfeatures abstracting of a society. The problemindicatesthe interdependence between of intensiveanalyses existingsystemswithin a theoretical "present" wouldtermsynchronic and (whatA. R. Radcliffe-Brown Levi-Strauss in and and of societies termsof space timein analyses) analyses different of orderto discern theirmorebasicfeatures. Here,the problems structure and processare inextricably linked so that the works of social and becomenearlyidentical. anthropologists historians ForHocart, comparative the methodis themaster to thebasic key He issues raised anyserious the by studyof society. abjures "shreds-andof patchesapproach" EdwardB. Tylor andJamesFrazer (currently as exemplified Levi-Strauss), by discounting uselessany "composite madeup of scattered picture (3). fragments" Forhim, "Itis betterto do a few societies thana vastnumber (ibid.). thoroughly superficially" Hocart of commences examination theorigins government of his by that"allthefunctions government discharged of observing [are] among has peopleswithoutgovernment..." (30).How then,he wonders, it theinstitutions andfromwhatsource? originated, Through comparing of leadership societies in and with government in thosewithoutit, he comesto the conclusion that: is for ... ritualorganization vastlyolderthangovernment, it exists where and noneis needed. Whenhowthere no government where is ever societyincreases muchin complexity a coordinating so that
will graduallytake over this task. It is this evolution from ritual organipages. [35]

that agency,a kind of nervoussystem,is required, ritualorganization zationto government that is to be roughlyoutlinedin the following

the ThusHocart, Durkheim Mauss, anidealist, like and is seeking fundamentalbasisof societyin termsof a systemof existential ideas.These with providea cosmologyby whichmen may orderboth theiraffairs one anotherand their relations towardtheir externalenvironment.
In this sense, Hocart maintainsthat: "Templesarejust as utilitarianas

314

| THOMAS

O. BEIDELMAN

frame Ritual,then,is cosmologyin action,andit is thiscosmological of reference which all societies of whetherthey have share, regardless formalgovernment not: or
Man is not a microcosm; he has to be madeone in order that he may control the universefor prosperity.The ritual establishesan equivalence that was not there. If it were there already there would be no point in having a ritual; man would merely have to behave as he wished the world to behave, and there would be no needs of words, of altars,and other methods of effecting the identity. [69]

dams and canals, since they are necessary to prosperity..." (217).

An awareness cosmologyand ritualas keys to the forms of of is evenolderthantheworksof W. Robertson SmithandDurksociety thesetwo masters the theoretical heim, though provide impetusfor most contemporary research this problem.Both Durkheimand on with nature Smith,like Hocart,weremorepreoccupied the existential of ideasandtheirassociated effectthantheywerewith anymaterialistic basesof society.How can one accountfor the existential differences in the forms and underlying ideas exhibitedby differentsocieties, whiletheseexistin similar environments ?There anunbroken is theoretical continuitystartingwith AdolfBastian'snotions of the psychicunity of man, continuing with Durkheim'snotions of fundamentalforms of

for features the conscience of collecpsychology accounting the broader andconcluding, present, at with Levi-Strauss' aboutthe tive, postulates of fundamental structure thehuman mind.Theseareuseful powerand ful concepts when usedwith the cautionof Hocart.On the one hand, he observes "allrituals butoneatbottom,variations a simple are that of theme..." (237), and asks whetherdualisticconceptualization "is or in traditional innate man,whether is merelyanold habitpersisting it it in as nature, a age afterage, or whether doesnot lie deeper human
law which it obeys in common with the rest of nature"(289). Hocart

also statesthat ".. . we are trying to get at the innermeaning.If a distinction to be madeit mustbe basedon the whole structure, is becausethe structure reflects meaning. . ." (86). In these passages, the in Hocartparallels passages late Durkheimand Maussand in LeviStrauss there is a congruency where, at levels of high abstraction, betweencertain existential of societyandnatureitself.At this aspects theories assume someof the pantheistic of point,Hocart's metaphysics themorephilosophical of French eventhough, speculations sociologists, his of nevercitestheirwork.On oddly,he, considering mastery French,

NEGLECTED

MASTER

| 315

the other hand, unlike Levi-Strauss, Hocart "pulls himself short" and cautions the reader about accepting his theories without ironically furtherresearch,saying of his analyticaltables: "Such diagramshowever introduce a definitenessof detail which is certainly not in our
evidence"
(29I).

Hocart'sselectionofkingship asthe focusfor his studyof the origins of governmentis basedon his assumptionthat ritual(andhence cosmofeatureof any society. The ritualor cosmologilogy) is the fundamental cal sides of kingship are obvious (witness the eloquent pre-battlesolithat loquy of Henry V in Shakespeare's play) so thatit is remarkable few of this institutionhave been undertakenby social competent analyses and anthropologists.Hocart's two works, Kingsand Councillors Kingship, remained, until recently, the most subtle and searching social studiesof thisproblem.2Despitehis negativecomments anthropological about historians, is to them that we must look for analysesof comparit able quality.Thus, Bloch's classicstudy of medievalkingshipand, more recently, the complementaryworks of Kantorowicz, provide insights strikinglysimilarto Hocart's.3 During his exegesis,Hocart providesnumeroussuggestiveinsights of the highest order. His analysesof ritual and preliteratesystems of thought, terseand almost epigrammaticthough they are, equal or surpass the most subtle analysesattainedin the past decade, even though these currentworks rarely credit Hocart. In passing,Hocart also provides valuablecommentson the divisionof labor,the relationof cosmoand and upon the origin of the logy to hierarchization centralization, not as an economic centerbut as a focal point for ritual("Populacity, tion first condensesround the centre of ritual,not round shops" [251], His comments on the social values of the division of labor parallel
Durkheim and Mauss, though he cites neither: ". . . men divide them-

themselvesinto two groups in order that they may impart life to one another, that they may intermarrry, compete with one another,make offeringsto one another,and do to one anotherwhateveris requiredby theirtheory of prosperity" (290), and "Specialization centralization and
2 An important exception is surely the brilliant analysis of Chinese imperial ritual provided by Durkheim's student, Marcel Granet, La Civilisation chinoise (Paris, 1929). Other recent studies are Henri Frankfort's excellent Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, indo-europeenes I948), and Georges Dumezil, Mitra-Varuna: Essai sur deux representations de la souverainete(Paris, 1948; 2nd ed.). 3 Marc Bloch, Les Rois thaumaturges (Strasbourg, 1924), on which Hocart drew and, more recently, two volumes by Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957) and Laudes Regiae (Berkeley, 1946).

3I6

| THOMAS

O. BEIDELMAN

go hand in hand; they are the aspects of the same process. The more specialized an organism becomes the more dependent it is on its neighbours, and the greater the number of specialists it has to cooperate with" (298). As a final illustration of Hocart's subtlety of thought, I quote the concluding passages from his book: ... conscious purpose precedes the adaptation of behaviour, and the adaptation of behaviour is followed by adaptation of structure. A community wants something . .. and the result of its action is to alter its organization.It is not indeed government that man wants, for how can he conceive of a government except by experience of it? It is life he wants,4 and in the effort to live he does one thing after another till he eventually finds himself governed, that is specializedinto producersand into regulatorsof those producers.He does not want a priesthood or a civil service to control him; he wants to control nature for his own benefit; but in the pursuit of this aim he places some members of his community into new functions which in turn produce a new type of man, no longer the all-roundhandy man, but the man who lives largely by thinking. The conscious purpose is the impulse that sets the whole machinery in motion with resultsthat are not foreseen. [299] Needham's detailed and provocative introduction is a model of its kind, consistent with his earlier superb editing of other anthropological classics-Robert Hertz, Durkheim and Mauss, Charles Staniland Wake and Arnold van Gennep. Yet two sections seem unnecessarily brief: (i) It would be useful if we could learn more of Hocart's intellectual background and secure some explanation for his odd, almost perverse, neglect of those French sociologists who would have most served him theoretically, such as Durkheim, Mauss, Hertz, Celestin Bougle, and Marcel Granet. Furthermore, some information on Hocart's fieldwork experiences in Fiji and Ceylon might clarify his approach toward data. Perhaps, however, such information is unobtainable. (2) Although Needham refers both to classical French sociology and to the work of contemporary structuralists, a more extended discussion of Hocart's parallels and complementarity to such work would have helped readers less versed in this area to appreciate Hocart's distinctive achievement. The only other flaw in an otherwise admirable edition is that the original, inadequate index was not amended so that it might prove more useful to scholars.
4 Needham skillfully defends Hocart's notions concerning the concept of "life" as an explanatory factor (xxxii-xxxv).