Retrieved from: http://www.cifas.us/smith/chapters.html

Title: “Social and cultural pluralism” Author(s): M.G. Smith Source: In Social and Cultural Pluralism in the Caribbean. Vera Rubin, ed. New York:

New York Academy of Sciences.(Annals 83, art. 5). p. 763-785. Reprinted in: Africa: Social Problems of Change and Conflict, by Pierre van den Berghe. San Francisco: Chandler; and in The Plural Society in the British West Indies (1965), pp. 75-91

The Plural Society in the British West Indies

The Plural Society in the British West Indies

by M. G. SMITH

UN IVER SIT Y OF CALIF ORNI A PR ESS

BERItKLEV A ND LOS ANGELES 1965

Uni_i,y 01 California Pres> s.rkt r.y.oo Loo )'''1101 .. , Colilomi.

C. mbridg. Uni""';ty P,. .. London. :t:'\!Ibtnd

L;b,ory 01 Con" ... c:.,,,,1og end Numb...: 55·102M

Printrd iD .". Unil«l Stat .. 01 A"",,<c>

To Mary

Contents

I West Indian Culture I ,. Ethnic and Cultural l'lural~m in the British Caribbean 10 ,. A Framework for Caribbean Studies \,

•• Social and Cultural Pluralilm 75 5. Some ~P<'CII of Social Stru~ture in the Brituh

Qribbean abOlIl 1820 92 ,. Slo~ery and Emancipation in Two Soci(tia II' 7. T he Plural FT~mew()t"k of Jarnakan Society 162

• Community Organj:e;ujon in Rural Jnmaica 176 ,. Education and Occupation.1 Choice ill Rural Jamaica \96 10. T he Tramfonnalion of und Righl4 by Tranmt~ion

in Carriacou 221 I I Structure ~nd Crisis in Cnnada, 1950-1954 262 12 ShllTl-range Pr~peclS in the BritW! Caribbean 'M Notes ' IS Index !5\

xi,.

[4

Social and Cultural Pluralism

In Ihi, ewy I sh.ll cry to define the conteptl and conditioN 01 social and ",,1m ... ] plunli.m and to indica,. thdr imporlance for loci.! Ih"My and ~.e'lXh. In order to focus «tendon on tlKoret;ClI i ..... es I avoid defCTiptiv. materi.ls U far .. J>O"ible.

J. S, Furnh'all w., Lh. A,,, \0 dining,,;.h the plural lOcl.lf •• a "parale lorm <>f .ociety. Furniv.ll w~. an econmnil( wi In <OMiderable cxp<1"iente o( the COlonial Far Ea.!. He . lImmalited lh;s ."perience "' follows:

In II" ........ in J .... prob.bly the ~"1 tIlillg .h ...... im the .i.l ,o. i. ,he II'ltdI.y 01 peoples-ho",p"", Chin .... Indian, and nath' •. It b in \he Itrict-01' >on .. 1 ",edley. fur !her mix hu. do Mt ",,,,hino. !:acl>. group bold. by its O"'n ",Iigion, its o'.<n cuhu ... and I.nguog •. lu ow," ide .. . nd w'Y'- .... ind;"id". ~ 'hey 11>«~ bu. only in (he morx.t.pl><e. in buying . nd .. llin, . T hett to. plural ooci"y . .. ilh diff ... n, "Clio", 01 the community ljnn, ,id. by , Id., bu, .. pan,.ly, .,ithio th~ .. m~ politic. ! "nil, [no in lhe <COMmie 'ph"., ih<re i, ~ di,;rion of lobo", oIoni noW Ilnet.'

Anyone with C~dhbean experience wil1 .. r"gni~ the iorce and nlue of FumivaJl', remarlo, but du ring the ye.nlin« he introduced it the itlea of plu •• lilm hOI undergone little re~n.mcn t Or . y.lematil ation, al'hough the term "plural iO<:ieti' now enjOJ'! wide currency, relhapo fo' thi, .... 00 .ociclcgi", have tended '0 shy away from the concept, yet it is e""nd,llor tomp.,-..,ive lociology, it ileuily developed ~nd applied, and without it a . igoTOU •• n. ly.i. of c.",dn ,oci"ie, i, cx=m~ly difficult, if nOl impouible, J .hall therefore tty to give thi" concept a ,u;table thMletical f"",,,

It .. OJ the plul'11economies of the Far Ea" .. n colonie, th ... ttr.cretl FY,niv. II', attention_ He I. W cJ .. t1y ,ha, thi s ,",onomic piuraJiID'l wu .imply .n •• pect of the iOcial plurali.m of th ... colonie" ond u id 0(1

in the pa.ua~ al, •• dy quoted, Howettr, J wi,h 10 tal:.e the argument

"

" iOClAL A"O CULTURAL ,'LURAUSIo<

bac!< one *p further, sin~ this social plur.);'m h ~bo correl3ted ",jib

cuhur:l1 plunlfsm. and .inee ,b. ph,ral ,od.,y iueU develop. in ratlter ,ped.~ although by Do me:lnl unum.l, conditiom. Acc¢rdingly. I,h.ll be;;in b~ c:onside,ing ,h. mOlt general problem. of loci.1 0.;;""'., namely, the nature of ,uhure lr.d society An.! their illlCTrelotion. To do 1(1 I .h .1I quOt •• mnel'ecent thinl:ing on the.., wpies.

Evtr .inee Ttlor defined culture ... l1 those """pacil;'" and hlbiu acquired by man lIS a memher 01 ooci.ty,"· there h ... been a birly general agrtement on the ,,'(llft 01 culture. For tbe eorl y anthro­pologi.u, cu ltu re W", tI,. proper subject maltcr of anthropology . nd, dcspiw tbe ... orl: of L H. Morgan, it "'"' only wilb Lo,n. Durkl\eim and hil school th.1 the nature of I«"'Y and ill rei. dOll 10 cul,,!!'e be€ame an i"'portall! locus of Imere-e. By then T ylo .... ~di"ition had beccme entrenched .• nd .oci~l organi .. t;"" was generally treated as one ~Imemion of ,ufture. The probl.m 01 Ile~ning oodoty was thus COIIlplic<ued by tho ''''Iui,cment thu this definition . hould iiI prevail· ing vie" .. ol cuhnre. for tbi. ruson. among O!h~l1, Durkh.im·, method and theory at fim failed to win wide lupport.

It II t aly enough to deflue fO(i .. y gen.nlly, l nd Radc1i!fe-Drown', description of it as "the ne'wor\: of sod"l ,.1.tlonl" i, perfectly ado, qu~,e. social relations t>.ing d;.tingui.hed. by r~CUlTent n."tllal adjun, mont •. Howe\·u. e'tn th il "'" 01 definition ~nds to .. duC!: lOciety to O<>CiallUucture by ttlncoping 'i!lite diff"r~nt levell of ab lt,act ion. The real difficulty crops up when we try to deftne .odeti., gen.rally.., as to diitinguW> t>.,woon thorn. Since TrIor'. view of culture imph .. Ihat anT particufar cult"re i. barnt by a particular ..,d.ty. il i. difficult to I« how .w: call dilti ngui.h betw.cn CUltUI" dlMr, unlelS "'" have lome agr~l dc~nition of mODeL

By ignoring Ihi. anthropologk. l roncorn wi,h culmre •• primary anll all.indu.'v •• sociologists tcnll 10 ose>pt the difliculti., of dc~ni,ion Ihat ui", Irom baving to fit culture ~nd fO(icty tog<thrr; how~ver. in uring to dilunguilh lOcieties, they Ilco much the .anle problem ... do the ~nthropologi "'. and ,heirsolut;on. ~re not Vtty dilferenL Thu. Ih. cu,rent sociological preielenco lot (he .tudy 01 "",i.1 .yltoms avoid. the problem of deKning sode'ia l~mlClvei. Marion Levy make. tI,is point ~ery dearly. and b • ..,. hiJ "",..ion 01 m-uclUroI·functional t~ory on a de~nition 0{ sodttie. a. theoretically .ell .. uffidenl 'ystem. of aClion, the memherl o f which Ire monly I>oro inlo thcir respective unill.­Th.i.o dclini, ;on bas tht« feature. of spedal interes, here. filll, Levy '. act;on h .. ohviou. affinitia with that behavior thaI anthropologiSIS regud at the content of culture. Second. tI,. theoretically .dl',ufficiene ~ystem ;. go:nerally the mOil ;nd,";ve of ill kind. Third. 'he view of _ ieaes " rob,;,~Jy d~ rfprflduct'''e tmia rai ... cortai n djfficullie •• In these term •• each /';"uer tribe mIght well be a .. parate society.

Faced wilh this probkm of di.;linguisl\ing betw~~n 1Oci~lieo, Rad· cliffe-Brown', respon.e wu an Indy,ic e,'''';on n the. limil •• til lhe ""i.1 'Y"mI approach. In hi. vi~, "If we take Iny conveni~nllocaJi ly of a suitable .i.e, we can study Ihe structurally"em u it appears in and fr<>DI thar region, ; .... , the DelwOIk of telalion. C<Innocling the in h.tbilanu .mongsl th."""lveo and Wilh Ih~ people of oth.". rcgiQTIlI." • Radcliffe-Drown then ~uatCi ".ingle lOci.tits" with Ihe '"mucrur.1 lyllemJ oburnble in p" . ticular communiliel.". De'pile !hi., he .on· .t.:Inily encountered the problnn of differentiali ng homogtnoeou. and h ... rogentou. societies. Since be chose tIllludy llrucluul .,..te .... rather than »cielieo, aDd .ince he conui""d Ibut .ystanl ¥ functional ~qui. !ibTi~, they weIc homogeneow by a.\SumpliOll, and <0 helcragenei" W.J ruled ou~ N~rlhcless, Radcliffe- Brown olfend a u .. lu[ uiterion for di.tingui4hing structura l .ystems. In a homogeneou! O)'.tcm each JlalU, and role Iuu a uniform definilion, Wben identical Jlatux. and .ole. ate de6ned dilferemly we h.t'·c a plurality of JlructurallyatC<lll.'

For R>.ymond Firlh, "No lociClY can be given a defi n ite limit;' and he holds that "fields of ""i.1 relation', not cleof'<UI societi •• , must be lb. more empirical nOlion of social aggregates.". On the other band, Na~l, like Marion Levy, found it neeemry 10 distingui,h bcr,,'un ""ittie., ~nd ~e defineo .hem II "'he relatively widesl tffecll~ groups," deai""n ... being judgN by ".he quantitali~e range of in.titutiona[ aCli.itieo entoTtd inLn by Ihe group ..• and lh~ nalure an d general Ttlevan«: of these activ itie1.". Nadel Ihtn poinu out thllt "mostly, when we loo~ for I ,<><iely, we find a po!i lical unit, and when .peaking of the former, we mean in dfecl the latter.'" ThCTt i •• " obvious cor· «<pondence belW«tl Marion Levy'. ·'thc:orelicaUy seff ..... fliciem system 01 action" and N ade!', "relatively wid .. , effective grO'JP"; both lend 10 be defined politic.ally.

Since I 1m conCHned with du'ingu;,hing between homogeneou., plural, and o.her "Ipe' of .ocitly.l onno( avoid Ihi. problem of der. n. ins I .<><i.ly; nei'her can I ignore queotion. of lhe telation betwun society and culture. It i, ob~jO\l' thll when societieo arc concei""d "' structural system. in equilibrium, <heir homagondl, iI ... umed, and heterogeneil' i. difficult 10 define, c1 ... ily, or .na[~1C. In co~ .... nce, OM geneul model, namel" that of h""'ogeneou. m uclun.I 'yst""lJ, is applied til quite diaer~m types of ""i"y, Ihereb, obKuriog Iheir difference., millutling their analyses, and blading <he de""l opm~nt of social Iheory. It i, perh.!" "'clflll nOling here that the t wo main method. of 6eld inveo, igation, n.mely, community &ludie! and IIID­

pling. both tnCOllrag<' ... umption, of nnily in the .yorem. wi.h wll1ch Lheyde.!.

Even so, their f.ilure to dilling";," lOcie.'.' hl1 neither d.eterred antlvopologi ... from diJting"i>hing cultures no, from cominuing rO

78 1OC'''l. A~U CULru ..... L fLu ..... LIIM

d~ fine CI,hure in terms of society a~d vico ve...". The CUlTent "je ... · i. 1I00l.1y ",led by Finh:

The ,ermo r.pr~nl dm .... n' race" or componcn" ill b»1, hum.n ,;'U.UOIl'. If, toT ;nmn .... odel)' Is ,,~.n to mOOn . n nrpn;zod .," of individu.I< "'hh • Ri .. n way of !if •• ClJltu ...... 'hI< ""Y of iii •. II oode 'y i ... \.on to Ix .n 0Ut<!'" of ..,.;.1 ... Iotlolll. ,,,h,,,. h ~ <onten, of "'_ .. lotion>. Soc;"'y ern!'h .. ; .... 'he hunun comp'm.&~ ,he .,.;grog ... of people .nd ,he ,.l.tlol\.I betwetn .h ..... Cui,,, .. ernphuj, .. the compo"en, of .ccumulated t<IOUrtel .

nonm .. ...;.1 .... en :IS ",.""ial. ",lLi," the pc<>ple inh"h, e",p!cy. 'nI"",U", .dd 1<>. and ".",mi,.I'

David Jlidney. in hi. t=n, review of anthropological th~ory, ,h.,.." Firtl'" vi~."

Failure to develop an a~.d definition of ,oxi.ric. ultima tely may h.~ the ume basi,;u the continuing- definition of culture and lOCi.,y in tern" of One .nOlher. Analyses bued on notionl of synem tend '0 avoid lhe problem of how • cu lture and a lOCi.,y ~re reJal.d ..... we .aw. T rior initia lly defined cuhurc a. beh,·ior learned in sodelf but. od.J.Jy enough, .odol 0'l"ni ... ';on, wh.ich Was liken lO ' . p' • ...,n' society, w.u res"rd«l by T rior. Malinow.J.i. and oth ... alone dimension 01 cuhure. TI,e mOlkrn view, OJ "ated by Firth La . qually ullIati.f.ctory, since it implies that I cuhure and. socie ty are Ilw a)~ coterm;nou, and interdependent. This view al£O oburnCll 'he ,.cognition and l nalr.i, of cuhut;llly hetewgeneou. uoiu.

in diocu.u.ing their inturel •• ion, Nadel, like Firth, M fi .. , ,ro.u cui· m .. and iOtiety al ",term;noul. "Socie<y, as I see i" mean. rhe totality 01 lOci.l faetl projeC!«l in,o ,he dimen.ion of relo,iomhil'" and group_ ings; cullure, the Urne w ali ty in 'he dimension of action:·" N.del i. here u';ng the term ·':t(tion·' in much the .ame "",ose.tJ M.r;on r...,vy 0' Talcott Pllson.: bu, later on he ~i.tingui.hC$ be" .. ~n 'he boundnrieo of culture, with i ts complex of lAngu.ge, id.a sylte"'s, .nd 'elivitie>, and society. with i ts complex 01 groupings and rebtioruhips. At this IUlg<!. cuhure .nd oocicty cc"'" to be co,.,minouo for N.del, .inco hi. CI'tgory or ~aIl""uhu re" inclu<les £0"", of aCtion ouoh as l.nguag.. building. or art "',Ie., which arc independent of IIOdal boundaric •.

Nadel t"elU mi, dillinCtion upon bi, concept of irulitution; •• "standardil.Cd mode> of co-activit)";·" for ex.mple, marriage, blood re'lcng<:, family, pro?""y, cl'ieftaimhip, and the like. Although he cl aim. that RadclifFe·Bro"n·, defin i,ion of imtimtions is moot lii.c his o .. ·n, it is probably to M,linowski that Nadel w;u llIost indeb,.d for i.l,js concept. In be" Nadel'. io.titution •. like Malinowski·" i,,"olvc a charter o[ v.lucs, a t:O<J. of rule., se, fonn. 01 ,ocial grouping and ?"r£Onal relationship<, a ""'t cycle of ""tivitie., I m"erial app .... lu •. and a p"'p"'ive ch""ct ... These ore the di.tinetive {eatu,,,, of Mali.

" now.k,', itulitmiell', r~g .. d.d ., th~ "conO'et" i.ohtes of org~n i .. d behavior." "

N:add .h""," tho! ide .... ,tn'ide., and modQ 01 grouping are in ter­dependent elements 01 inuit .. ,, ;oru, ,It>! they (<>rm a common '),"COI, ohhouglt they car. be •• p" .... ltd for "nalrsl •. and thai tl~ir interrela. [iow can be .wdiod. He 'hen di"ingui.hH boctween """gula';v." and ·'opeUt;v." i ... tilutions. be'", •• n Ih~ inuinni"m Wt OI'e "com. pul50ry," "ahemalive;' and "e~dwiv","" and between ;nscitulional and residual or noninstilulinnal forms 01 oclion, whiCh M group> in fOUT talegori.., nUll"ly. unique hiSlorical ~ ... ... autonom"u. idea systems .uch as language or art 'I~les, recurrem abnOIllUlitia .tlch as suicide, and cu.nornuy convention. and wores. N3dd includo these nonin.titutional .ction. in hi' concept of culture. For him JOci~ly con· .l.u of instilutional,oci.1 ,..,lauon. and ,,"ouping.. and the nuin body of culm,.., i, abo firmly rooted in the system of in.titu tiOltl.

The corre.ponden.:e belween Nadel'. dwi~c.tion of inlulul ion. Ind Linton', analysi. of cuhure inlO core, .hernat"· ... and .ped.lIies ;" dur.'· Linton', core consim of Nadol', compullory 'nuiu. tio,,". and hto specialties include Nadel'. e"dusive institutions, bUl Linton', Kheme incorporat~ mores. convent;Onl, langu'ge, and art "yles ... weil

T"i, ,..,yiew of anthropological thinking provides tbe background for my argument.. I thinl the views an(! positions jt .. t quoted .rc as repl'CICntative H they''''' signifinnl. The the"'1' of pluralism"""",, to de'lelop naturally on thi. h .......

In my vicw. only territori.lly diltinct unin haying Iheir own govern­mental institution. nn be regardeJ as .ocieties, or .,.., in flCt .0 , e· garded, Deles" lion of authority ond govornlllentd function is qu ite general and has man7 (orau, but ~ do not normally Ireat an o/T,d.l ,Ifuaure U an independent government unle .. il .. "iel all in le rnal i",ues of law and order independently. Il y tbis aito"ioo we .... n identily delegadon and delimit socielies. It olten happen! thn a .ubordin~.e population group i. permitted to) ex~rciu tal' in lu nction. 01 inl.,.-nai adminiltrntion; one d"", not thereby distinguish it aI a "'p.rate lOCicty. Howe,'", colonial gonrnmenr.s ,h.t diKharge the full range of govern. mcn!.>l lunction, within their terr itoritl regulate oocieties quite ciuinct Irom th""e 01 their imperial ~r:s. In northern Nigeria rhe scaltered comm~lIilieo 01 nomadic Fulani do not COnJ.tilllte a si ngle F~lani ,ocioty. but belong to the ,·ario.1I CIIlinlel in "" hich they r~de; lil e· w~. tbe general concept of Hausa socielY breau dO"1Il inlo tbe lep;o ra te H."", societies or Lbese emirales.

J hold thaI the core of a cultu"" is;1.! i .... imtional sys.~tn. E.m inlti. tUlion inyolves set lonnl 01 aClivi ,y, grouping, rules. ide ... , and ~alue •. The 101al syllem of inllitmiOlli thul cmbra~ thr« interd.pendent

" SOCIAL MID CIlLTUU L "LURALWoI

ay! lem. of utian, of idea and value, and of .odal rdation •. The inter_ dep"nd~nce of thne thrte ':Iot.ro. arise. from the fact that ilieir ~ menu l~lh« (orm " common sy,te", of institution •. These inuill)­tion. ~u integral ... ho1." ;u M.lino ..... ki would lay, and !.heir valUe!, "clivitia. Md wdal form. a~ mutually lupponing. The iruunniollS of • 1"'0]>1. ', culture form the matrix 01 thei r soci. 1 "rucLUre, .imply ~cau .. the instilUdonal 1)"5wn define. and unctions the penistent forms of social life. T o define the $OCia! Jtru cture, we m',,' therdore an. lyze the instinuional.Y"em, Likewir.e, to define a syu .. m ol social value or action, "e maU 6r>L identify ~nd analy.e the imtilulional fr~m .... orl:.

II foliowl from ,hi.! llIa t I population that ,bares a lingle .. t of in>li(utioos will "" cuhul'lUy and .oci.llr homog.meout. PrO'o'ided that i, i. abo pol ilic. lly diltinel. il wi!] . r... form • homogentOu. society. The hOD\og~n~ity 01 ,hil unit will be evident in thc uniformi,y of il! >odal Slru<1UU, itltHional . y>tcml, and. action pUlerns, T o determine the fOml. and1cw.b of integra tion within luch a unit. we mil", punuc th e method of i",nimtlonal analy.i •.

It abo follow. that institutional divc .. iti ... involve dil£erences of locial Itl'UClw e, ideuion.l S)1tcm., and form. of social aerion . That dil[erenca may conceivably hold for • li nglc insli ,u,ion. luch ... the fami ly. or for on entire imti ' utionallystem. T erritorially di .. inc, noi" ,h.t practice differing institutional .yttem. and that aTe politiaolly &epar.ue are culturally •• weUa. socially dininct, In lhort, inlti'u,ionol <liflerenw distinguish dilJeriog cultuUI .nd socia l uni". When groups that practi", difleriog instim'ionai 'J"lenu li~ !.ide by side undn a <om mon g"""rnm~nt the cultural plnrality of this inclusive uni, car· re.pontls with ill social plurality. and the network of ,odal relal ions between rh~ cullllrolly diltincr groups is wider and mo~ complex ,han thOle within wm. In short. cuhwe and society are not alway. coterminous or intm::!ependent. We do In lact find oociel iel Ihe component se.:donJ of which h.,·c di .. imil>r ways of life and model of socill organiradon. Such societi~ .... hibi' cultural . nd loci~l plur:alhm limull;lneously.

InstitutiotIJ bave been trcatcd a. cuh""'l lonns b, $Ome writers and as fociol forms by others. Actually, Ihcy combine social and cultural aspccu tqu.olly. Their soci.l asrec" comi .. of oct f<>rm' 01 groupings .n~ ~!31ion .. Their 'y1!enl.I of norm and aClivity, 109<'ther wi,h their ma,eriol 'PP~"'tu" properly belong 10 cultuu. Al tlIough ;nllitu!ion, form IhI: core of cultnr. and socie,y .like, they do nol exhaust ei ther. I'or ou, purpose, tbe important thing 10 nOte Is th~r • group', instilu· tional homogeneily invol~1 iu cu!tur:al and _i.l howogeneity, wWle instilution.1 plur:all .. n involves cOlTespondiog cultun l and social pluraliJm. A sociery Ihe mcmbers of which . hare • (QlUman .y"em o(

" bali, or "oompu].ary' imlitutiom but pncd<:e differing "alternativc' .,,(1 "udu.iv." in" ;lmiono i. neither fully bomog<:1leou. 1\01" fuJiy plural. Such unilJ "'" oocially . nd culturally h. 'cT"!:"n.o ....

It i. possible 10 compile an indefinite 1;'1 of in.titutions if "~adopt l \<ery n.rrow <lelinilion. Howe>er, in'tltu lion' dealing with lhe sarm: phues o[ lire (end 10 lorm n .ys:em.uc dlUter, and to fo:r .. tall confu­sion I &lull.~~ k of tbele el ullen a.,ubsystems. Th~ ma. riage, ramily, levin ••. ex tended l inlhip form •• And the like, lo~'h.r COTluhute the kimhip oub'J' ... m. Lik.w~. government js (he . ublY'l<'!m 01 explicitly ' <:gula.i,. itulilUUOns, such as law, parli. me" t, poIi<:<:. and ci.n and military adminillnlion. Each of theJe ;nstilutional .uboy.1emJ has many lin la "'i,h Ibe athen; th". the kinship in.ti lulion. have promi. nent economi c, educat ional, r.cru!i'~, rdigiou~. and government.1 upecu. We noffi not p • ...!i, ... ~ ny p.e<!ltablw.td ""rmony oI ;ru llw· I;on., II (unctional !heory hu ltndtd 10 do. The avai lable evidence IUggesl. Ihlt oolUinency, inlt.dependence, and coherence a~ neoe" sully greller within ueh inni,u lion. l sub.ystem Ih.n belwun Ihem. l1u. I." of inslitutional IUbs)'llem> lonn. tm innitu I;onal ry.tem, and Ihi, Cl n ,ary widely in iu mode alld I'~I 01 inl~lion an<l equi li)" .ium. Societies differ In !hei, complement and dimib,,,ion of insli",· tion.1 forml. Some bd (l'ch inltitutions u Ihe army, lb. priellhood, ehieftairuhip. marlou. or age ,,",U; but any gi l'.n ;,,"ilulienal S)'llem rend, toward. an inlerna! in tegrotien an<l Ihll.lsome closure. Thus in • eulturolly ,Ii,ided society. each cull",. 1 .. cucn ha. lu own relat ively exciu.ive way of life. wilh its own disu nctive lylt.IIU of .cUon. Ide:u and ". Iues, and social relation .. Ofltn Iheae C\lh" r~1 seetiom diller a40 ;n languagc, w~Ieri.1 cu!iure, .nd technology. T he culture concept il norm.l]y wider than I!ll! of society. unc. il i"cludes convenlio"., Iangu.ge. and t«noology. bUI Ihe presence of IWO or more c"ltunlly dillinct gTOups "'ithin a lingle society Ihowl !hal th= 'wo a.pects oI lOCi,1 r •• lity may vary independently in Iheir lioniu and inltmlatiom.

To analy .. . oocie:y that 11011 a lingl. uniform cu ltu ~. we IttWI dellne tbe rompon~n' lruli tu tiOnl and ,h~ir in <ernlltionl. i\. already poi n ted OUl, this procedure includ .. <he analy";" of a(lion palltrns, ideational 'l"WTIS, an<llOcia! .tnlCture. T o ~n.l )'l.e a ooci~'Y that ron!>in. cu~ lunlly dillinct gronpl we mun make .imilar analY''' of the ;nstilu. tion.1 Sysl~rru 01 each component group .nd Ihen dete.mine their interrelations within !he inclusive un;l. T he cultuNllly dinina com­ponen" of a single lOCi. ty are ;,. cuhur.1 ~tion •. They are <lin i n­gui.dte<l by p .. .ocdcing <lHlcrent rorllU of hoslilutio". Genenlly these cultural )Cctions are higbly nclui ivc social unill. each oonslituting an area of wlttmon lit •• beyond which retauo", IetId to be lpecific. segmental. and governed. by structurnl facton. Under these conditiol'll the boundarie\ of cultural and social sectiott.! correspond, and the di,.

82

conti .. u ity of value 'YS'rm. I. most extreme. How"~t. it some"",,, happen, that Klme me,ober. 01 dill ..... ", ruhun.l Jectiono aMOciale more regularly with one lIl01~r ,hAn wj,h 'he ",ction. to which they belong. In such cuef the lOd_1 AOc! cuhu rol le(:.ion. h.ve somewhat different bound~rie •• and !hei r m~rgin. may be dynamic.

Th '. bring< me 10 the problom 01 defining Lh. typc and level of in· stitutional ... ariation ,ullicie'H to distinguish cuhnral groups. It i, "by;o", ,hot modem sot~lie. are cuhunlly heterogencoul in many ways. T hey conta;" a wide range 01 occupa,ional lpeciahiet, they e~hibll .' .... tification ond dau differcncco, they often conuoin ethnic minor,titf, .nd their n".1 and mb.n populations have loroewht difkrent woy. olli!(. Some writen dmTibe mOOn'll lOdelY a. pillralu. tic bCCl.ue of ill occul"',ion:tl dh-.,..;:y. 1 p,der to "r that it I. culturally helelosen.oUl, ~nd 10 re.erve the term plural;sm for thaI condition in .. hicb there is a formal diye .. i.y ;n the buic lY'teln of compulsory ;n>litul;"no. Thi, baJic ;n>l;lutionl l 'YOIem embntCQ kin· .hip, education, religion. property a w.! <:<:OII"my. recreuion, and cettain $O<llliti~. JI does II0t normally include government in the /ull sense of Ihe t...", for .. ....,ns g;"en bela .... Occup",ion, ore limply '])edl hies. in Li nlon', .ense. The dC" clopm"", of occuparional gronpings .nd in,li. lution. muhipli .. Ihe h"" 01 sp~iah;es wilhin Ihe cuilure, bUI Ihe rtsuhing diversity lenes 1M baoie I""i"nlonal 'ynem unlouched. Snch a floreKel1c. of al<ern,,;,,::. anchored In. common ')"= of balic ;mli· mlioru Iherdore prC$eDlI conditions of callur. 1 and loci.J h.,era­geneily withoul plur.li,lU.

Tile sawe thing i, m:e 01 daIS dillereners. which are differen"," wi!hin a single ill.nilu';on.1 fromeworlt. Their oomp"(ibiIiIY wi thin thi> fnm('Worlt is .... "';.1 for tI,d. compari>on anti . anking. Thu._ an neiL'Ier incOlpor~'" \-fau,," cI .... palt.rn, into au. own .y"em, MT can " 'r amalgamate the 1100, 'imply beause our own i"'tituLion.1 IY" lem ond taOal valu.:. differ radically from ,heir \-faula counterparts. Cbu patterIU rePTelOn' differing styl.:. of life, bUI lhe conoeplual difference between IUch life 'lyle. and culture aJ a way of life i, pro. (ound. Lif~ style. co.n and do change ",ithoul invohing any dI.n~ in Ihe instilulional 'Y'''''n. \vimin dau·'tr:ltified """elie,. luch ... those of 'he lIaw. or of Britain, the various ,trata or claucs hold common economic. religious, familia!. polilical, and eduUllionll1 ,ns,i,udo",; but the condition of cultural .nd taO.1 plu.alism comi", preci .. ly in I~ 'y"emalic di ffcremiuion 01 ,he.e b.'lic i",d,utio"" Ihem .. !" ....

\vi'hin ~.ch cultu ral secd"n of a plural .ocitly we m.y eJtPCCI 10 find .ont( dilI~renc"" or IIratilication or social duo. T h.eoe cultural occ lions themselves are us".1 Iy ran ked in a hier~rchy. but the hierarchic a,range men, of !helt lOerion, diffen profoundly in ilS basi. and ch:U-ICler rrom Ihe hierarchic SI"lUs Ofg'IIli.uion wi,hin uch sevrr;olly.

IOCIA ~ AN!> CU~11-'U~ P~ti ..... USlo. .. Ttl<: dimibution of sta tu. within cad. culturlll .oc tion rclII un eomlOon valu~ ,,,d criteria quite .peci fic to tint group. and thi, medl~y 01 _tional "alue .ystem. rules out the .. Iue con>ensu. mat i.I pruequ;,ite {or any st.tu. continuum. Thu. the plurllity u ~ dilWntinuolU ItUUI

order, i>cling any foundation in a 'y,tCIO of common interel" and v>.lu ••• while iu component RaiD,," .te genuine .tUII ' continua. d:,· tingui'hed by their differing .y.ltm. of v. lue. action . • nd sod. l rei.· tions. Accordi ngly, ilUO(u u currem theories as,un," or c"'plll,;u the inltgrative ~nd continuou. ellar.cter o f .od. l "rttineation, they may apply <0 each cultural $tedon. but not to the plurality ... whole. In ela .. Iy.term. lOT ilUtance. lOCial mobility and acceptance pTe'UPPose Idoption 01 U nton', ahe rnati"",, il,a[ ii, of new cia .. convention •. lingu i .. k habits, and lile lIyles; in conditio!\! of cult ural plurali>llI. howevct. inte .... ction.l mobility involvel adop tion of • new instilu, tional'yltem, and for thaI ",..."n i, an ..... Iy occur willlin an indio vidual lifetime.

II i. especia lly importanl to d4lingui.h between plurali.m and .. d ...... $tu lifia.!;OJ\ be",n .. of the profou nd <lilforonCCl that underlie their lotmal re .. mbl~n<e. Where .... tbe a .. ~mplio" of inlegr.:.ion m.y be v.lid (or a do" .\y.lem. it a nnOI normAlly hold lor. plural hierarchy. In general, .ocial llratifiation OCcurs .. ilhout corr'tpond; ng plunl;,m as, 10f t)C'mple, among the Ilr;I;.h, Ihe Baun. or 'he Polyne.i.n •. T h .... e i. also no in be.ent " .. on .. hy all cultunl oe< tiom of a plurallOcicty . loould be ranked h icr.Ltchirally. 11 h .. betn .bown by van Lie. thaI the j ava ne«. Ch' ne~. Indian, and Negro oct:t iom Df Surinam have po:nIlcl ooci. l ltatul." A,l have pointed oUI chewh.r •• ... tu. modell must perfOnl> cert.in loci,l [unclion., and tltey e.nnol do so if they aTe undu ly comple • . " Con .. q\lently. the ,lotus IUUClUte of • very complex pl urali ty .. ill olten equote t .. o or more dist inct cultu .al Retionl. The point here is thM cultural difference . nd loc;.l Itratir,cation VII)' independently. Thw they Cln neither be ",du(l!'d to One anoth ... nor can they be eq ua ted. Culturd plura li.m i • • • pedl l form of diffc",ntiltion b~~d 0" in3t,tutional dhergenceJ. It i. there· fore a ~riou. errot to equate plu .. li"" wi,h "cIalO matification," .. Lloyd Braithw. it.e" and Rarmond Smit h" h l ve done lor TTinidl.d Ind lIriilih Guiana, tel['«ti .. ly.

Lik .ocial d ....... Ille .ural and u,b. n populations of. givw oociely tend 10 differ in ,heir life sty!.. talh", than in Ihei ' in .. itu,ional 'YI' tews. Ho...,ver, all RC<I~eJd h .. pointed out, the ;n"itution. 01 a developing "rb.,., popul~tion may cUlne to differ 'h~rply !rom IlIooe of Ihe rUTOI foll." T hi. i. a r.ther 'pedal ..... thl! ilwoh-es }llul3liom only if the basic ,,,,t;mtion.l .y.tem i •• Uocred. Othetwi .. tho resul l i' l condition of lOCi . \lnd cultural heterogeneity. Th~ problerru pr~ .. nted 1.01 ethnic minori"" ue IOmewl1at mote

SOCIAL AND CUL'ruRAL pL~IAL!!~

complex. Inlgdy btcallSll \hi. term hu been ambiguo .... ly applied 10 uci31 .... don.l. linguluic, and cultural group'. Let w therefore con· 'id .... specific ca~. The Greet., lt~li.ns. and iri,h 01 N ew YetI:. each ha,.., thei, own religious .rul bmlly practiW. perhaps their own language. arul SOIl.Hties 01'0. II their inlti ll1tional'ySteml diverge from the genoral Ameri"" ",ood to U 10 be inrompauble wilb the latter, then they mUIt be ftg>Tded "' cultllul ""Ii ani. Imtitutional incom· patibility i, indicated by dilfe,encu 01 grouping:. nonus, Ictiv;tiu, and luncuons. We have simply to u k, for imllnee. wbether the puemll or mattrnll, the judicial (I' the prieuly ",tu. and Tole hIve tho Illne defillitionl and i""itUlional COlltextl among differing groupo, Ind ",hett.", 'hese role inCUIIIl>enu could be e"chang"" wilhoUl ~iol.ting sod.1 JlI"..ctice. 1/ lhq can, tho grou .. share a COIll!'llOn institutional 'ptcm; illhey cannot, the groupo do nO'. Dillerences in the de~nitiom of tileSt spedfic IlltUo(llnd !'Olea im ply differing forlD.\ of ",d,1 group­ing. of institution.13ctio". and 01 idu tion. l .ynem. They cannot occur in conditions of in,Iitu tional unifn,mi,y.

lIy this crituion. it ...,ml deal tht marri,,,, .Old the fami)y vary among Grtili, l taliam, Ind I,;.h ;n content rath .. (han in lorm, in weir affectiV<l quality TIlher Iban in t.11(;r soci.l Junction. sa nc';om. ~nd nOnns. Llltewilt, the Creek, Itali.n. and Iri.h Varian t1 ol Chri .. ti.nity .ha~ comonon b .. ic lonna of orgnnin,ion, ri,ual, Ind ""I;ef. Their IOIIlI,uiLility i, evident liS well ;n Iheir common ollgin .. in these COIIlmon element.!. w~ do 110t normolly diningui,h groups thlt omerve dilfe,eullOtfms, Or Ih( .. me lot~m in dill'erent WI)",,,, p .. ~ti<> iug di/rue", .y.tenll of totem;sm. and I thini:. there i. no calt lor \rea/iug Chr,stianity otl>erwioe. Un)eA ethnic ttaditiolU preseut in· comp""ible in.timlio"a/ fonn., lMy Ire. like lI«i.1 elaA pottern" Itylillic variauon, within a common baoic way of life, analylk.l1y .im;)a, 10 Linton's alternativet. T h", ethnic Vlriations, like el l S! "yle<. may prodUCie cult ural and lOCial hcter<>gl'neity. but do not involve plunlilJD.

In cellain part. of the Un;~d State! it ;s possible th~t the Negro population practice< a din;nct instilu,ional ')1tem in my fen.., 01 the term. There il evidence that certain Negro communiti •• in tho South di/F ........ 'ply in their ,ocial, religious, and economic orgonilJ.tion from those of!h, adjoining white!. A4!uming !hi, to be the case. we lUuSt regard JUeh t>:egro-whitc populatio", u plural eomnm nilie!. They are (omm.unities. bUI not """,.,in, even if ,hey emb .. "" ~nti,~ 'ncmbcr sta te. of t.1te Union. A ..... cnll in Liltle Rod., Arkan .... , have shown. Ih .... member 1t.!.eS arc not independent unitt, and therefore do not form sepo .. ,e societin. T he point hert i, Ihat fed.",lilm permill the presence or plu ral communities ",jlhin a n.do" " .. te that may not i<tell be a p~uro.l.ocic,y. I di"u", t.hi. point mOre £ully b.low.

85

The whole prore .. of N"egro accullUr3!;O~ in lhe United S\lIteI, tlte C.ribbun, and other parto of lilt New World pr.,upj>OlCd b .. ic ;lUt;. '"'ionll dil[ere~ between l':"&,,oeJ and whitu. It I,amll to re3l.On Ih.! some ICC!'on. of th. Amerian Ntg'" population will now b<: Ie!/! lully aocuhuraled than oth . ... N • result, th. American Negroe. a~ cuhunlly divn$l' Ind may be subdi"idcd innilulionally imo twO or more ",ctions. tb. Iccultunued (XI,eme com.ining 01 tbo~ who hay. adopted whit. American cultu ... IS f:or a. the P'I!>Cnc (01.,.·ca.\1. ar· rangement pt'rmil>, while ,he ,,!,pooil. extreme conwts of tt.o.e ,,-hose religious, kin.hip. economic, and usoci.tion.l inotilutiom are {unltest removed from while norms. It lollows that tllc American Negroes do not {mill a "'patale cuhun ] .ection. They are a lubordinue lodal legment of a (ohn'illly heteros,nwu, lociety, and may dili .. among ,""m.dvet ;n.!itulionaUy. Some groups of Amerian Negroes belong to pI..ru rommuni I'''; othel1 d<l !lot. Sucll a complex liluatiOll ClnnOt be handled ad((Juately in tenm 01 rao. rdationo al<lne; planlilm and it! aJU:rnali'cl mull be defi ned inltillll;onaIJy nther than in ucial or ethnic «rms. CultUral h~lerogen~lty hal manf fOrml and b...,., .... hile cullunI pIuulilm h ... only <ln~, namely, divmity of the b ... ic lnl ti tu, . ionaII~stem, Plural wei"ties are by no m~alll the only .It~'n.t;vel to hQt1l~ne<>u. societie,. The United Stat •• and Br;uj[ ore loet<:rogeneoul ,ocietiel that conlO.'n plural communiti", and evince plutlli"" wi!hout themsel'''' being plural JOCieti .... "eilhe, cnlor-ca. u: nor cIa .. Ittuifi· cation illlpli .. b .. ic institutional dlJ£erences and, in my "iew, the tCfm ethnic minorhies should be r~rvffl for th<>ll! n>!;onal group. that ,hue the urne ha,ie insdtution .... the hOlt ><>cielr, but p'aelve dil­tiDCti~.lyles.

Several <lther pointl Ihould be made before we Iea"e thiliubject of inslilutional variation. M we h.ve lcen, each inttitUl,onlllubsyllero tendl 10 be integrated with other inlt;llltionailllblyuem •. For thia rea· ron. it is ra. e for the imlilulioMI differences betwccn group\! to be limiled to one pal'CicuIar in"iculion. \I In"", diJ£erenect no at all significant, Ibejl will generally be ... odlled with like d.ilIe'en",. in oth.er i""l iculi<ln., ,nd Ihe cumulative effect will be ballie culturallUld lOciaI diJ£e~nceJ belween I~ group\! concerned. Such differentiated group> f<>ml "'parate cultll ..... 1 and »ei.lleClion •.

JrutituliOllaJ diffe~nce, Vlty in dcgr-.ec, C"en when Inc inllitutl<ln. under cotDpa.rison al.., dilttr in kind. Thut the kiruhip inltitution. of Well Indian folk lI'\d elite form 'W<l dillinCt kind! 01 I)'item, but the dHr .... nce betwt<'cn Ihe.e tWO ",tems il le» than th . t betwt<'cn one bued on pa l,ilinul descent and polygyny and another based on bilateral ki",hip and m<lnog1my. Although b<llh paired comparisoru ,c,'eal diff .... nces in kind, and thu. belong 10 the lime order, one Ie' of differ­.ntel cxc«ds lhe ocber. Cluorly. Ibe more ob.iou. th e lei of insticu·

"' tiollal iliff"rem, ••• !h_ ... ier d,ei . iden.ilicuion .nd analy,ia. In ,hi. ICMe pluralism is a ,limcmion . ... mc rocieti!1 being more .batply divided than oth . .. or having more ."bill"j, ;on l, Li ke .... i.." within a pl"rolity, Iwo 'eeI;"nl m.l' differ lw obviously frorn one . nother ,han from ~ third ; l>TlW;de(\ Ihey all have dilEc .. nt 'l'mm. of b .. ic 1mtit,,­(iOllS, ho,,'eve •.• n three .re Il'ucwral uni l' 0/ j<lentic.J analytic ".IU,.

Since inltilution. ~r. inug,...l uni .... 'he "Ien.ent. 01 which are .e,i ,-j. lie., ide .. , ""d SQCiaJ reb don., ,hei r difference> inyol". dillering "'I" tml. of ide., ac ,ion, .nd .ocial grouping. T o ~et,""j ne whether lueh diHcren<cs exiit in I Ri om populalion i. a .imple mot'e' of empirical rete~rch, Sud, ' Iu dy focuses on ,h. i"";(Ulion.l form. of grouping, idea, and .c,jon within the population. It leokl to <lctcrmine the ir uni. lormity or diftt'l'nce by ,be critt.ion 01 co,np. tibilit) alrt~y di",,,~d and then to de~ne 'htir dimibu,ion . Given precise j ndi~1 and h)', pothe.e.. the problem. 01 social inttgn.tion and chmge are abo open '0

fieJd .. udy. Even in a pipul .ociety. int,itutional di.enhy doe. not indude

dilf<=ring ,)·".rru 01 government. The rcuon [or ,hi. i •• imp!.: the oonlinuity of tueh oocietieo as " nita i. incompllib!. with ~n internal divenity 01 govemlllentol inttituLion .. Given th. fundamental d ifler· .n",," 01 belie!. volue, and oTg.niution ,h.! oonnote plutoli.m, 'he monopoly 01 pow.r by one cuhural ~ion i. Ihe el5en(inl precondition lor ,he m.intenanceO!lhe total aociety in it. curren t fOrn> . In mort. th. Ilructu",! po~tion .nd function n( the res,,!>,;v. '}':I,e m differ 'h.rply in pl"r.l l and o!her Klcittics. Inllit",;nnally homogeneous .ocie,i .. de~lop. variety of institution.l motivations toward confnrmity with oociaJ norm.; in .. ilPtinnally split rod.tiel lad. th<!$C common Olotiva· !iOI1' and lend 10 ~ly <orr'"pon<lingly On "gulu i"n. The domi non t _ial 8I:<lion o{ t!tao. rohur~ny oplit oociuies io 'imply the ~c,ion thu conU"Ou till: 'ppanuul of pow~r ami force, am! thi. iI 'he basi, of the ItA tU, hierarchies ,hat cho r.octelize pluI>li,m. Sin.., the uniu of this hior~rchic arrangement ale It,,: ,ultural "",tiom. ranking applies initi ally to .lUtiom Dth., 'hap individuab . • nd within e .. h .le<:tion it i, therefore go~med by other It.n •• f""ol1.

In ,udt situation. the lubordinatc sociallection. ofte n I-Cck to regu· la,e 'heir own in~Inal . 1f. il1 indep<ndcntly of 'heir .uperion. Thu', ill Grlm. d. lho. P"'lau ls traditienaUy avoided the offici . \ .uthoritie. by settli ng their dispute, through loca l "pucemah ,," or magici.n" hy ignoring ellicial form. of bud tr. nsler. "'''''iage, divorce. will •• '"ginra. tion, and tile lite, and u~wadal" by app-ealing to thei. ,"c.ionalle.wer, E. M. "Uncle" GaiT}', for ."' ... nce in th. rno" v., ied cir<u«UllucC .... Such . ... ui ... dju'lmen!S arc nat " .c.snry among (he Bantu On South Altican .... "' .. ion . .... ·ho have thei r o,,'n offici.a appoint<'<i and COo' trolled by the dnminant whi ,e,. T he!e Santu .re permined to ob",rve

lbti . rradilional I~w II long as i, <.1"". nof confl iet wi lh till: Union I.w. In Gren.d>, .. hert there i, only One legol <:ode, the problem 01 the lo..,t. !eerion i. to main ... in in cu.'om. by I)'stemalic c" .. ion; lhe peo· pie there arc f"i.ly sJr.illlul ill thi. " 'peet, but itllii l "'!lAins true Ihat, ........ within plu,allOci<ti .. , we .hall nal find t,,·o equ~l an<l indrpend· em .. u 01 goverruuent.1 i"'timli"" ..

CululT.l plu •• li.m i. not confined to plural .ocieliei. alt..hou gh it i. thei r l»:1oi •• Furnivall noted thi. poin' long ago: "Ou"i~e the tropiCl a .<>eiet, ouy h~ •• plural r.:u urt>, nOllbly in Sou,h Alriea, C.n.d~ ~nd tlte United Stal ..... . bu, in general ,he.e mixed population. hne a, le .. t 1 comUlon trad ition or We" ... n cultu"". .. There i • • socielY with plu,al features. but not a plural ""dely:·" This l'auage revea4 lOfIle theo,«i,,"1 conlu.ion; it would be <lifficul~ to name a more extreme cue 01. plura1.OO<ty than come",I"" "''"I Sou,h Africa. More-0"", f urnivan O«Dlcd to think that plural oocic,ie. "'ete confined ' 0 the lropia. Nevertheles., I tbink ,lui, hi. main point here i. very JOund; in Bruil and lht United S,ale' we have -"Xietie. ,hal evince cultu .. 1 plu,aUIIl).. but that are de.rly dme""nt (rom plural sod.'; .. . In Canada the r""llch d"",in~te Quebec, while Anglo-Saxon. cont.ol the other prO\'inrt •. Even if the French .nd Briti'h Canodiaru practiced diffe,en t irutilutional .ynenu, th.ir pr'l'indal .epan,c:ness would mUn that tlte Canadian rede,a,;on i. xn HOOdatio n Qf sroup! differ­entiated tcrritorillly and institutionally. If o1,i. unit .... re dominated by. dillin't cultu,al minority, it woul<lthen p.re.cnt I 'p""ial form 01 plurallOcie,y, lbe critical feuure of which ilthat ,,·itbin it the cultural '«"Olll Ii,. 'ide by . ide. "condition that in 'he Unioll 01 South Africa has gi".,n rist" '0 ~f>4'Jhoid.

In R,.,il and the Uni,...:! SUIts 'he (ulwr.lly and politically domi· nl m tr.<lition is Ihat .hared I.>r Il>e ove ..... 'helming mljority of the population. Under .uch coruii'iom. even culturally da,i,,", group. arc minorities at lhe national 1.",1, although they may well include .ome locl l majoril;" . AI nuional minoritie., they present no lhreat to the (Unent rocial order and. as long u their CUllOm. are tol.r~l.d by the dominant majority, Ih .... minori,iu may pasill undjuurbe<i. I, 1. theTeforc necessary to distinguish , ueh societiel II Br •• il and the United States from another ilIId far larger group in which the <lomi­nam (UlturallCCtion ron,titutes a .mall minority ... iel<ling POWI!l" ova 'he ulliL "''' whole. Unck: • • ud! oondiLioru, Ihi. tlominam w.ino";ty i. int!COOpably pltoccupied wi,h problem. 01 "noelu,,1 m.in ten.nce and economic and politic>.! rontTol. For ,hi. turon it Ol:ty actively led; '0 dilComage lLC(uliuruion among ,h •• ubordi,..,e majority, ,in« ,Ill: cunen, incompa tibility of thei , in"itutional .yotemo i. held ,0 jUllity the Itatu. quo. T his has happell...:! in the B,itio.h W.,. Indie, on Je,eral occasiom, and i. in 1900 the ",ajor i.,ue in B,; tisl:t. fut and

.. SOCIAL .. "0 CULTIJ~"L rUll.,.,I.ID.I

~nlf;ll J\f.riu. It;. ,hi, latter group of ",delia thu should be distin­gui.hed 31 pluro! lOCietin. T hey >TO mucturally peculiar. and they form . r",Jd worth l~a11ludy. Ftdeul comutudon . may modify the lignifi"-nce of communIty pluralilm when the R<:lional proportion' of the community are rev.ned at the nationalle~.l. They do not modify Ill. effect of plurali.m in the Union of South Africa bo!cause the domi_ nant whites 3rt:. minority It bOlh l.v.lI.

It i. prob>.bly be'l to lummari~ my argument !>tlore prO(eeding. I ha •• uied to .how lhal the ;n.,iluuonallys,em that form. Lb. cultu .... 1 core defines th e lOci.1 muC!UT. and ". Iue ,yuem of any given popula_ dOll, Th ... populltioru lIlat con"in group:I practicing different Imm. of imtitution~[ I}"tem exllibi, • (olTe'ponding di,~itr of cultural. >ocial, and ideational pauerru. Si~cc a~y in.tit~lio"al sy.tem tends tow~rd internal in(<gu,ion and conoi.tenoy. uch of ,he.e diITerenti ated group' will Lend to form a clOStd JO<i<><~1tural ~nit , Such pluralistic condiLi(>1l' .~ far mo~ wid .. p~.d than = pluraJ JO<ieti ... the du­tincli.e fe.llm: of which i. their domination by • c~llllral minority. Plur~li"" i. quilC distinct from othor lorms of I<><bl heterogmeity. such '" cl .... u~lification. in that it consuu in the coexi.tenc. of in· comJ»;tiblc in'litutional I)"to"", Plural mctie. depend IOf their main'cn'-'1tt on the regula tion 01 inteneetional rel~tioDJ b)' one or another of the componeot cultural sections. Whon the dominant '«tion i. also a minority. the mum,ral implications of cultnul pluralism have th.ir man extreme expreS$ion. and the dependence on regulation by /orce i. great .. t. A SO(iety whose membcn all share ~ single .)~t~m of inili,ution. i. culturally and lacially hom~neous. A lociety having one hui, inlti'~'ionll,y.tem in a num!>er of .tylel Or One basic sy'tem and > nun,be< of institutional alternatives and specialties is culturally and fOCiall )' heterogeneo"~ SinO! social ime· gntion develops i",tltution.lly. the nruelUul conditions of ""ictici vary lo:ording to their homogenoou. , heterogcneow. Or pluml charae. t~l1. Thu$ pluralilm h .. thr~ uPCCL.l of Ipeciallignilicance for UI; (I) on the th~oretica l pla"e. il directo .!lenrion to 'he need for «finement and variet~ of analytic model, by prc"""ting condi(ioDi that CinnOt be handled adequately whh ooMClltional model. of homogeneOUI equilib­rium .y.tema or integrative ,tratification ord .... ; (2) methodologically. there are the problem. of Itud~ing iuell unit, holj'tically rather than in cOlllmunhy segments, of cla'>l ilying them Itruc<unlly. and of asseII·

;ug their relative incogt1Uion in object"'. terms: ."d. (') analytically. the functional org'-'1i"'''on and development of I~ch unil! abo pClle 'ped.l problems thu require hi.loricall1udy.

How do plural ",deties and other culturally plurali ltic unilS origi· natel Furni""ll thought Ih .. they were limited to the modern colonial tropia ."d .. ere proou(\, of W."CfO cco n"",ic expansion. Howevcr,

IOCIAL .. N .. CULTVUL PLIJllLl,M

the Norman conqu:St 01 Btit~in, and the RODlan ooll~ueu belore it, «crt.lnly ottablilh:d plu ral societie ... nd thete Ire mlny other in· 1l81lm Ihueanno! be auributtd to Weltem economic o<ti.ity. Thu. io M.radi, Nl~er, the fOTm~r Ho bo mlera 01 Kmin., aft., being dri.en out by Ih: Fulani in 1807, Cltabli.hed a su<<<CJUlr Ila~ thaI u abo a plnral .oci~ty, . ince ill M<»lem rulcn lorm a minor;t1 romroiUng papn. wh~ kiJllhip, :conomic, magi=rdigioul, educational, mili· I.ry, and polilial irtstiluliorts lIt qui", dillinc!i~e. In Uganda .. 0 abo find plural societies 10uIIIled belor. the Europe.", mi,'ed On the Ittne. MOIinn eoonomic ror~ may account for coloni.l pluralilies, but thue are not the on ly onet. Perhapo the mOll! ~I\t.ral amwet 10 thil quellion 01 origin ,. migralion, which aha IccounU fOf the develop· ment of cthnic minorities. This migration may be forero. as io Haile Mandi or Wesl Indian .lavery. or semivolunt3TY as in Ihe mOvtmem 01 indentured East Indian laoor into the West lndie., or volunwy a. In the Bri tish penetration or Kenya and Buma, or the Dutch coloni ... lion of South Alrica. It lIIay i",'ol ,'~ conquen and conso/idatioll, but thi, i. nOt alway. tbe cose.

I! ls a maior error 10 concciv~ the conditlonJ and probleml of plnnIi5ll1 dirt<:tly in t~ml$ 0/ tace relations. To do 10" to mlsla't.e the ""ial mj'th fot reality. ~nd thw 10 miss tllelUncturt that underliC$ it and gi~e. it both lorce and form. II is quite true, by and large, th.t mll'krn plunl KlCietie. Are multiracial, and that the.! racill gro~1" tend aho '0 be cultur,Jly dislinCI. bul thi, is by no mean' .Iw.\" the "'It .• s lhe cu ltural diver$;'Y or the American Negroes and Ihe d;'tinc. tion between ewJ/uJ and ,"dig/ne in Africa ma't. .. duro It ol~n hap. penl thal racially di.tinci groupslorm • common homogeneow oociety, lS for instance omong the H auu·Fulani 01 northern Nigeria . Con. .. nely, we ..,metim .. And culturally distinct groupo that bolong '0 the Nme raci~IIl""'t. up ..... ing their differen(Clln radal "'rill •. This teem. to be the case in Guatemala, Haiti, ~"d amo"g the Creole rolk and .lill: o( the Brili.h Wen InditS. Hi.,ory provi~1 u. with mlny o,!ler uamplcs, such as the Normaru .nd Ang](,.Soxonl, the Engli'" and Ihe Scots or, IDOIt Icc.ntly and IIlOSt elabomely, Ihe Nul ideology. Race differences are mesltd in contellts 01 ""ial and cultural pluralUm. ~y lad 1Oci.1 'ignifiance In homogeneous uniu. A! the Cuibbean Ila"e li lerature .... 0 ... most durly, the function 0/ raci= ;., merely to justify and perpetuate a plur21istic social order, Thi, being the cue, the rigoroul analysi. or rare relatio", pr~lUppose. anolysc. 01 Ihdr OOJ\teJr.1 boud on 'ht th~y or pl uralism.

In da$S-$tratilied &odeti .. dd .... mce h ~morut,..ted or ex acted interpersonally, ,,·hile in plunl uni .. it is often generolir.ed by tbe dominant group and enforced on the lubordinate !Cotion •. Such generaliu:d obligatory deference ;. a n imponant mode of SOt;.1 ron·

tro!. Nonna!Jy. dr .... manner, or speech serve 10 piau individuall se<;tionlUy but, wMr. rAdal diff~ren~. obtain. they U'\1:o.Uy act as the mon ",,,,,ral indicato". being the mo., "", i'tan, to chnnge. In !hi, "'"~ the donlin.nt minority s«1:.s to perpetuate i t.! dominion In" the plural IIrUClUT • • imuh..n"omly. Roci>! id~logy seel:. to .ymooU.e ~nd legit. imi.e intersectional ",,1.tioM.

Another common sociological t:rroT is lhe redu(lion 01 cultural and lOci.1 pluralism to ,oci.1 'ITa<ificarion. Such equatiun. mimate the character and implications of ;n.t;lulion.1 differentiation where rhi. i. nOt ent;rely ignored. Thul the H:oitia" literature debate> w~ther the Haitian cultural and 10d.1 ICCtion •• re ca" .. Or <b'le!: Braithwaite applie. ooth bboll to tile sc:ctiott.! in Trinidad: Tumin" trelll the L.dino and Indion sc:ctioM 01 CUltemalln ~ie\y u c .. te.; and Lord Olivier'" nuts the Jamaican cultural section. a. d a"!e,. Both Turnin aud Olivi..,- presented , crounl> of smooth chlnge within weU.in<e­gUted K><;eti ... Both a".I)'SCI "·er. discredited hy violent uphcavall in Guatemala and J amaica .hordy alter the public. tion 01 the ''''0 worb. T be !'«ent development of radsm in T rinidad allo quc.tiom Bnith • .... ite·' analysil. We arulOI adeqttately . nalyn: pluralilY as an inte­grated I\nti~Cltion ordec.

It il.OO mi.!le:>ding to .uppose !hat the pen;"en~ 01 plural units i. due to the predamin. """ of comIDon value. between theit cultural "«dOni. Such common ... lu"4 and integrotive medt,ni,lIl' c,n hardl~ b. claimed foc sodetiel lile Keny •• Hungary. 'ht Union of South Airica, British Cuianl, Algeria. or Nyu.lan!!. However, hel"re thdr CUrTenl ~isordCt1. did the "olue cohesion ~nd r<gUlative .pterIU of that population. dilfer .ignificantly from lb. present? Social qui· eocence and cohellon diller .harply, and 10 d<> regulation and imegra· tion bU!, if we ~gin by u.uming 'bat integration pr.vails. h i. virtually impossible to di.!tingui.h tlt(Se condition •. H.,. again, plural. iun indk.te. the n~d £Or greater refin ement in our 1!ru<lU,al model. and lOCilllhoo'Y.

III ... pedolly diffIcult to i",late the po:siti .... eff"'t of common va lues in culturally . pfit soci,,;e' that owe their form and maimenance to a .pedal concernra,ion of '.gullti .... po .. ·.r ... ithin the dominant group. III the Congo the BelsialU tried <0 lol ve the problem. of political con· Irol and _ial justice intrinlic to tMoe eonditiofU by neu\ulity in il> mO$I e~ Lr.m. form. Accordingly. they denied all cultllr~1 iCed on. "'e Innchi .. , and Ih4 appea ... n" of cultural imp~rlialily was highly .pplaud.d for II" 'l.Obil ity it seemed to offer,III The 'OIlity w .. 'OlOe­whal difl~,ent. III d .. S.lgi~n legid.tion affecting polygyny .ho"'. clearly. and ~Cent evenll It .. e .ho",n tbe tOlal inadequacy of tbi. 101u· tion ~Iso. Whate>..,- the form of Ih. political lylleJll. th. differing .e,,;ol\.Ol valu", within a plural sociel~ Ol~ a profound 10\1,ee of in-

$OGlAL AN" CULTUUL PLuULlSIoI 91

Sl.bili,y. Since u",dficalion i. now au"me<lto be an integrative order, h i. 'httefore misluding '0 "'ptefenl the inlusection.l .elation. of a plu",) .ooety in tMoe temu.

Since the plur:al l<Iciety depen<ls for it. mucluu l lo.m and con' ,iouity on ,he regulation 01 inteIJectiond relation. by government. changes in the locial OUuClurt p"''''pp= political changel, and these ulually have a violent lonn. In dew"r.';on. the subo.din.~ cultural «ction may cjther practice cscapi.st ,eligioo! ritu.1! or create a chari'PI.tic leadership as the organ of leCtio"al solid.rity and pro~IL This son olle. denhip d<-vel0p' enly where people are desperate in the f.ee of overwhelming odds. We hO\'e numerou. ekampl'" '" charbmatic ludalflip in the West Iudies.

11te CO~'1uence 01 this mode 01 political change is olten an in. crel.Rd illllability, ,inCl! the undrcu""'rib~bl" po ... -er. of chOlumalic lewen are incoPlpJlible with Dlodem bure~uaatie org.nital.on and Wt'l tem parU.mentuy practice. Either the ch.risma i< roulin',ed by mini,teri.! rok. and bure.uaatic procedures, in which cue the people may lose their le.der, or bodl will problbly proceed I long the dicta, torial path. R~oent!y the l$ nt;.h hive ="ed ..,veul regional f..teration, by

uniting colonial pl uralities. It i.s hoped tha' thele l«lenlimu will provide 1"'O,,,ble conditiolU lor the development 01 their popula!ion •. but th"", lede",,1 a$SOdations permit the elhe " ,inori!i", oE formerly diJlinet .oocrl'" to usi" one another in controlling u,ei •• uboniiute IOdal ,eetiolU. '" recently happentt! in Nyu,l , nd, for cumpl •. }'..t, ."H.", may modify pluf3!itiec if these ,ore .b.torb.d into large, uniu with I different ,tructure and compo,ition, but thue new colon,:u lede",tions have much the "me I«tion.l oompooitium •• their con· stituelll un'ts. Thus tlley fa~ t"'o cr itia l tells. rim. ;tlem.'''' to be teen ",lIether lh •• !!ociated colonic. will traml.". decisive govern· ment.1 power to ,heir {ede,alionl and thul ce~!e 10 be separ.te locie­ties. S.cond. it ",m.inl 10 be seen whether the lederd form and >!Sn­dation will facilitate muctural Changes within the component uniu.

Since in"i,ulienal ,y"em! tend to be in tegrot,d, lOde'; .. tha, in­clude tWO or more imtitution.1 'Y'tems ~ifler mucturaUy.lunction.lly. and in their mod", of developmem from thOle that <10 not. Social "ienee annOl ignore sucl, lod.,ies, nor can it de. 1 wiu, them fully if they a", trcoted:u homo~neow uniu. Since the wdology and cultural collltllUtion of these .ocie,i", ..., unin~ni gible separately, both mUit be Imdied t<lg"the' to p,ovidc an adequ. te ."alYlk In Ihil poper I have !riM to put forward. theory of plunlilm tha t may "I'Ve to guide ~eld worl: .nd analrsi. alike. The utililY of this th.."y depend. on ito cap.city for development.