Zeitschrift für Volkskunde: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, Index zu 1/90.1891/1994

Sociologus, N.F. 16.1966

Bibliographische Daten

Zeitschrift

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschrift

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714790

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714790

Persistenter Identifier:: BV041717830

Titel:: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde

Weitere Titel:: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde

Erscheinungsort:: Münster [u.a.] ; München ; Berlin

Verlag:: Waxmann, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Volkskunde

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1929

Lizenz:: Rechte vorbehalten - Freier Zugang

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Wissensgebiet:: Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie > Allgemeines

Zeitschriftenband

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenband

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709998

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709998

Persistenter Identifier:: DE-11-001938345

Titel:: Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, Index zu 1/90.1891/1994

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1995

Signatur:: LA 8001-Index zu 1/90.1891/1994

Lizenz:: Rechte vorbehalten - Freier Zugang

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Buchbesprechungen 95 are not infrequently at variance with those of critical but more cautious observers. Whereas, for instance, Prof. Gwendolen Carter (Northwestern University) holds the view that Bantustans, like the autonomous Transkei, “counterbalance the negative restrictive apartheid provisions“, van den Berghe considers them “a cautious substitution of a Lugardian type of indirect rule for the old system of direct rule“. But popular elections, the formation of parties, the appointment of a cabinet and parliamentary debates in the Transkei go far beyond anything indirect rule ever provided in British colonies. Quite obviously then van den Berghe is out to prove his political convictions rather than review the situation sine ira et studio. The reason for this bias is not far to seek. He heavily relies on critics of apartheid, quotes hardly any Afrikaner historian or sociologist and does not bother to refute the arguments of defenders of South African policy such as W. Ropke of Geneva or W. Drascher of Tübingen. If we assume that the value of the book lies rather in its theoretical insights, another difficulty must be faced. In the concluding chapter, comprizing 17 pages out of 371, Dr. van den Berghe outlines a theory which in his opinion applies to so unique a case as South Africa. He proposes nothing less than a complementation of the conceptual scheme of Functionalism by the Dialectic method. However, we recall that Lévi-Strauss, dealing with a tribal society, and Dahrendorf, in analysing the conflicts in an industrial society, already proposed such a procedure independently and prior to van den Berghe. He is thus not wholly original in patching up the defects of Functionalism. Furthermore, in doing so, Dr. van den Berghe is not very explicit. To under stand his proposal fully, one has to go to his article “Dialectic and Functio nalism“ in the American Sociological Review 1963. There he argues that Functionalism and Dialectic share four areas. They are both holistic in approach, viewing societies as interrelated systems. They are both persuaded of the dual role of conflict and consensus in integrating and cleaving society. They both share an evolutionary notion of change, Dialectic viewing it as an ascensional spiral, Functionalism as a differentiation in occupational specificity. They finally both rest on the equilibrium model, since the dia lectic thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme assumes alternating phases of dis equilibrium and equilibrium. In applying these shared concepts to the South African scene, van den Berghe admits that alternative bases to consensus in the integration of society must be accepted, namely political coercion and economic interdependence. The dynamic equilibrium model must consequently be modified to allow for maladjustive change, circles of malintegration and abrupt social mutation, i. e. revolution. In tracing these dysfunctions in South Africa Dr. van den Berghe charac terises them as rigidity of social structure, the polarization of interests which results from this and forecasts as inevitable end a sanguinary revolution. The point, of course, is whether or not this characterisation structuralizes, if not fossilizes, a moment in the historical process, in particular the situation after Sharpville 1960, and disregards the continous process of mutual adjust ment between the races which was accelerated by that event. Thus with regard to the alleged rigidity Dr. van den Berghe is fair enough to concede that this applies to. race relations only, in most other respects, commerce, industry, communications, even in the political system run by the whites, South Africa proves most adaptive and efficient. As to the polarization of interests with its attendant tension, Dr. van den Berghe states that the extremism of the whites calls forth a corresponding extremism among the blacks. He ignores factors which counteract polarization:

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

fullscreen: Sociologus, N.F. 16.1966

Zeitschrift

Zeitschriftenband

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung