Marilyn Strathern on artefacts as mere illustrations and my objections


Author: Doctor Terence Rajivan Edward (or 0161__Rajivan, if that helps)
Draft version: version 1 (20th October 2025)


Strathern’s argument. Strathern asserts that since the 1920s, Western anthropology has aimed at describing worldviews, e.g. the worldview of the Trobrianders, the worldview of the Azande, etc. Any reference to artefacts is at best a helpful but dispensable illustration: helpful for explaining a worldview. (1990: 37-8)


A distinction. There is a distinction between using a particular artefact to illustrate a worldview and using a type of artefact for this purpose. I take Strathern to mean that reference to both a particular artefact and a type of artefact is at best mere illustration. I do not usually make this distinction when evaluating Strathern though.


Objection 1: structural-functionalism’s aim. In the mid-twentieth century, British anthropologists were interested in describing social structures and interested in problems to do with social structures, problems which cannot be reduced to worldview description, such as how social order can be maintained without a central political authority. (Text lifted from Edward 2017.)


Objection 2: not all general propositions. A worldview consists of propositions, typically highly general propositions, such as every event resembles its cause. But there can be components of a worldview which refer to named persons. One cannot describe the Christian worldview without reference to the specific person of Jesus. Similarly, a worldview might require reference to a particular artefact, e.g. being able to pull out the sword stuck in that stone reveals one to be King of England.


Objection 3: the measuring rod. To explain the propositions of an unfamiliar worldview to us, one will probably have to explain concepts, for concepts are the building blocks of propositions. But can one explain some concepts without referring to particular artefacts? Let us imagine that a tribe measure using an unfamiliar measuring unit. The length of this unit is determined by a certain rod. In a dispute, for example over whether you are four of these units in height, the rod is brought out. Does the anthropologist not have to refer to the rod?


Objection 4: Firth’s non-illustrations. Early on in his classic 1936 study We, The Tikopia, Raymond Firth tells that the (quite) isolated Tikopia tribe are increasingly using Western tools. They are keen for more of these tools, as well. But Firth tells us that he will not focus on tool use. Why not? He says that the Tikopia social structure is unaffected by the use of Western tools. For anyone versed in British anthropology, the argument is obvious: the proper object of study for a British social anthropologist is social structure and the Tikopia social structure is not affected by the use of Western tools. Firth's argument is the opposite of what Marilyn Strathern attributes to British social anthropology. In her history, artefacts are illustrations of the proper object of study and there is no need to refer to them in the final fieldwork report. Firth, in contrast, draws attention to a cleavage between artefacts and the proper object of study: the tools are increasingly Western but the social structure is not. (Text lifted from PhilPapers contribution.)


Objection 5: inevitable reference points. “Okay, maybe it is not necessary for the fieldworker to refer to a certain artefact or set of artefacts or type of artefact, but some artefacts are so interesting that the fieldworker will not be able to resist referring to them.” To illustrate (!): I have been working at the heritage house of a 19th century Victorian writer for over a year and in the dining room there is some fancy cutlery. One day I noticed that beyond the dining table, there were some giant forks in the same style. I wondered whether the giant forks were produced because the fork-producing business planned to sell forks to the colonies, to Britons on a civilizing mission, and the business was not sure about the proportions of some of the natives there. Let's suppose this speculation is true. Am I just going to say that people in Victorian times had different beliefs about the human to us BUT not refer to the giant forks? Of course I will refer to them: they are too interesting not to, too much fun not to. But Strathern could reply that there are kinds of fieldworkers who will not refer to the giant forks, for example a snobbish kind who thinks, "This is the most interesting thing I have seen, therefore I will not refer to it," and turns their head away, literally or metaphorically. (Text lifted from PhilPapers contribution.)


Response to the ontological turn. This is an objection to the ontological turn, whose participants accept Strathern’s argument and aim to do anthropology beyond treating artefacts as mere illustrations, or it is a worry of mine anyway. In actual practice it is often hard for us to get beyond this treatment. I have worked at Elizabeth Gaskell's House. They have these strange window shutters, if that be the right term. You have to close them slowly, it seems, and it is a bit annoying. I find it difficult not to interpret them as illustrating the Victorian belief in the virtue of impulse-control. They function to teach you to proceed slowly, because if you try to close them quickly they get stuck. They seem to be designed to have that function. (Do you even understand what these shutters are? How to describe them?) Maybe it is possible to get beyond this analysis but the anthropologist has other stuff to talk about in describing a little society, and may well not go further unless it is a hot topic. (Victorian shutters! Or Georgian ones actually, the house is older. Oh no! Text here lifted from academia.edu)


References
Edward, T.R. 2017. Artefacts as Mere Illustrations of a Worldview. Symposion 4(2): 241-244. Available at:
https://symposion.acadiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017.4.2.edward-5.pdf
Edward, T.R. 2023. Artefacts as mere illustrations versus measurement. Available on academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/95562265/Artefacts_as_mere_illustrations_versus_measurement
Edward, T.R. 2025. On ignoring artefacts in British social anthropology: Raymond Firth’s argument. Available on PhilPapers at:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWOIA
Edward, T.R. 2025. The inevitability of reference to giant forks. Available on PhilPapers at:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWTIO-13
Edward, T.R. 2025. Artefacts as illustrations of a worldview again and again. Available on academia.edu at:
https://www.academia.edu/130284299/Artefacts_as_illustrations_of_a_worldview_again_and_again
Firth, R. 1936. We, The Tikopia. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Henare, A., Holbraad, M., and Wastell, S.. 2007. Introduction. In A. Henare, M. Holbraad, and S. Wastell, Thinking through Things. London: Routledge.
Strathern, M. 1990. Artifacts of History: Events and the Interpretation of Images. In J. Sikkala (ed.), Culture and History in the Pacific. Helsinki: Finnish Anthropological Society.