Sociology and Social Anthropology- Andre BeteilleIn America the anthropologist studied the tribal society and sociologist studies their own industrial society. Primitive and civilized societies came to be studies by different sets of scholars on the premise that the two societies were different from each other. The differences were regarded as real and not imaginary. However it led to exaggeration of the manner in which social life was being organized. The study of primitive and civilized society by two different disciplines led to the assumption of two societies representing different realities rather than different pattern within same social order. The second difference between the two disciplines is that anthropology studies kinship system because of the ways in which primitive societies are structured by kinship network and its significance more than in the industrial society. For example in the Australian aborigine the entire community can be represented in a single genealogy and four terms used to refer to cousins, both aspect is different in industrial society and therefore of interest to anthropologist.What the study of kinship was to anthropology, the study of class and stratification was to sociology and again there were difference between the American and the European. The former concerned with ranking and prestige while the later more focused on Marxian analysis of class. The study of stratification was of less interest to the anthropologists because of the absence of graded strata or mutually opposed classes. The studies of kinship and of stratification by different sets of scholars eventually led to the growth of specialized bodies of literature, methodology and technical concepts. The differences got reflected in academic writings and in journals and it led to American sociologist developing a sense of incompetency in studying kinship on the ground that it was not their foray. This segregation of two institutions was detrimental because kinship and inequality has universal significance to study of human society.Though anthropologist and sociologists study different institution what is important in the identification of the discipline is the type of society studied. For example if someone studies kinship of New York urban slum then he/she is a sociologist and if one studies the status and rank among Kwakiutl Indians then the person is an anthropologist.There are also differences in the use of the concepts by the practitioner of the two disciplines; however the differences are in terms of the emphasis on opposite type of society. Therefore there is an overlap in the use of terms like structure, status, role, conflict, change and evolution in the two disciplines. For Beteille the differences in terms of the study of different type of society are not very relevant for two reasons:-1. Difference are not so large as made to appear2. No field of scientific inquiry can be defined by its methodThe more significant part of a discipline is the problem of study. It is the problem of study that defines the method of the discipline. In terms of approach, method and technique the two disciplines have the same approach to the study of social life, their methods are similar but they have developed different techniques of investigation and analysis. The contrast between sociology and anthropology has been done with reference to the method of investigation, that sociology employs survey method whereas anthropology uses intensive fieldwork. However such a distinction is false as no sociological study can be possible without empirical fieldwork and similarly no anthropologist would evade use of survey method. Another way of differentiating between anthropology and sociology is the assumption that anthropologist study other culture whereas sociologist study their own society and culture. Beteille feels that such a distinction can lead to confusion. Such distinction works only if all societies are studied by western scholar else it remains relative term. What is anthropology to American would be sociology to India and vice versa. It becomes meaningless if scholars from different part of the world study their own as well as other societies. Sociology and Anthropology in India Both came to India from outside, particularly from Britain, initiated by British scholars and visitors. Later Indian scholars got trained in Britain and USA played a dominant in the study of Indian society and culture. These scholars added to the understanding of Indian society but their orientation were largely those of American and British scholars. From the start the two branches were divided in the formal set up. They began to be taught as separate subjects in Indian universities. Bombay University started with sociology and Calcutta University with anthropology. For two decades these two remained as the centre for teaching and research. Later as soon new departments came up, eastern region opted for anthropology and western region generally for sociology. In recent years many university has both the departments however, Calcutta continues to have only anthropology and Bombay has sociology department. There is difference also in the faculties offering these courses; anthropology is taught in Faculties of Sciences and sociology in the faculties of Arts (social sciences). This distinction got carried over to research institutes and organization, the Indian Science congress has a section for archaeology and anthropology but none for sociology. There has been an organization since British day for anthropological research called the Anthropological Survey of India but none for sociology. The division of work proposed at the start of the two disciplines still manifests in India. Anthropology is limited to study of tribal customs and sociologist concerned with advanced industrial society. In spite of separate department and different approach the two disciplines have continually exchanges roles and the distinction appears vague and arbitrary especially in the works of prominent sociologist. For example G.S Ghurye trained as anthropologist had a long and successful career as sociologist. His essays cover a vast field of study including cross-cousin marriage as well s social-economic condition of clerks in Bombay. Other contemporary Indian scholars like M.N Srinivas, S.C Dube, Ramakrishna Mukherjee have all applied a unified approach to study Indian society. The distinction between sociology and anthropology was imported to India but in long course did not work out and the distinction has become blurred. The way in which Indian society is structured, provides no scope for distinction between tribal and civilized, tribal and industrial and they and us. In Indian unlike in America or Australia, the distinction between tribal and non tribal is vague, unclear and arbitrary. It is difficult to define any group as tribe as per definition given in text books. In the west division of work between students of primitive society and advanced society crystallized into the academic distinction between social anthropology and sociology. In India, spite of formal acceptance of the distinction, the actual pattern of work lay stress on unity of society and culture. There is no clear cut distinction as such but only variance in the pattern of work. The actual pattern of work even in the west does not stress the difference and overlaps have been there. For example, Lloyd Warner, student of Radcliffe Brown studied both primitive society and advances industrial society and so did Erving Goffman. The debate on whether there should be two different discipline or there should be one unified discipline continues. Those who favor for distinction to be maintained argue for different techniques of investigation for different subject though a relation can exist between two. Those who agree for a unified system also support use of different techniques and methods. For Beteille, whether to regard sociology and anthropology as the same subject or as different branches of the same subject or as two different subjects will depend on how we feel about the varieties of human society and culture. If the similarities are to be emphasized then sociology and anthropology have a unity but if we accept the differences to be more fundamental then the two disciplines have to be differentiated. Neither is more scientifically justified and it is ultimately a question of values.