3(b) Critically examine the drawbacks in assuming culture as an integrated-closed system in understanding of contemporary society (15 M)

Introduction

The idea of culture as an integrated and closed system emerged prominently during the early functional and structural traditions in anthropology. Bronislaw Malinowski (1944, A Scientific Theory of Culture) defined culture as a “functional whole” in which every institution is interdependent and serves to fulfill basic (biological), instrumental, and integrative needs of individuals. Similarly, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1952, Structure and Function in Primitive Society) emphasized the concept of social systems as self-regulating units where cultural institutions maintain equilibrium and social order.

Body

• Neglect of Cultural Change and Dynamism.

  Closed-system models tend to present cultures as static and timeless.

  Julian Steward (1955, Theory of Culture Change) rejected universal models of integration and instead developed the idea of multilinear evolution, arguing that cultural change is shaped by specific ecological and historical contexts.

  Eric Wolf (1982, Europe and the People Without History) showed that no society is truly isolated or self-contained, as colonialism, capitalism, and global trade networks constantly transform cultural practices.

  Thus, assuming cultures are closed freezes them in the “ethnographic present” and neglects processes of historical transformation.

• Overemphasis on Internal Harmony and Functional Unity

  Functionalist models assumed cultures were internally consistent wholes, where every practice reinforced overall stability.

  Clifford Geertz (1973, The Interpretation of Cultures) critiqued this, stressing that culture is a “web of meanings” that individuals interpret, which may lead to divergence and contestation rather than harmony.

  M.N. Srinivas (1952, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India) demonstrated how the caste system was portrayed as integrated, but in reality, it involved tensions, negotiations, and processes such as Sanskritization.

  Gail Omvedt (1994, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution) highlighted the resistance and movements of marginalized castes, which contradict the assumption of cultural unity.

  Hence, cultures cannot always be understood as harmonious wholes—they are also sites of tension and transformation.

• Ignoring Conflict, Power, and Inequality

  Closed-system approaches largely neglected power relations, structural inequalities, and conflict.

  Pierre Bourdieu (1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice) argued that cultural reproduction involves habitus, symbolic power, and different forms of capital, which create inequalities within societies.

  Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1992, Death Without Weeping) demonstrated that structural violence and poverty in Northeast Brazil fragmented cultural practices around motherhood, showing that cultural systems cannot always be seen as integrated.

  In the Indian context, assuming cultural integration ignores gender inequalities documented by Leela Dube (1997, Women and Kinship), where patriarchal norms perpetuate unequal access to resources.

  Therefore, treating culture as a closed system obscures power struggles, marginalization, and structural violence.

• Globalization, Cultural Hybridity, and Transnational Flows

  Contemporary societies are deeply influenced by global interconnectedness, challenging the notion of closed, bounded cultures.

  Arjun Appadurai (1996, Modernity at Large) conceptualized culture through global “scapes” (ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes), which constantly interact across borders, producing hybrid identities.

  Ulf Hannerz (1992, Cultural Complexity) emphasized networks and cultural flows, rejecting the idea of self-contained cultural units.

  Thus, cultures must be studied as open and fluid systems, not as integrated-closed ones.

• Methodological Problems of the Closed-System Assumption

  Assuming cultures are closed has led to the “ethnographic present bias”, where anthropologists describe societies as timeless and unchanging.

  Johannes Fabian (1983, Time and the Other) criticized this, arguing that anthropology historically denied coevalness, portraying studied societies as existing outside of modern history.

  This methodological limitation undermines anthropology’s ability to address contemporary processes like urbanization, migration, environmental change, and technological adoption.

  Hence, closed-system models are methodologically outdated for studying complex modern societies.

Conclusion

The conception of culture as an integrated-closed system was valuable in highlighting cultural coherence and systemic analysis. However, it suffers from serious drawbacks: it neglects change and history, internal contradictions, conflict, inequality, and globalization-driven hybridity.