The society as an ultimate value and the socio‐cosmic configuration*

This paper was first presented at the Espace Séminaire Philosophie et Anthropologie on “Relativisme‐universalisme‐holisme‐individualisme‐hiérarchie”, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 26–28 April 1989. A revised version was presented at the Seminar on “New Theories in Social Anthropology”, Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo (13–16 June 1989). I am indebted to Professor Signe Howell who organized and led the whole seminar and to all the Norwegian anthropologists participating in these four days discussions, I owe special thanks to Cécile Barraud, André Iteanu and Jos Platenkamp who discussed at length previous versions of the paper. Fully inspired by the works of Professor Louis Dumont, the propositions included in this paper do not of course engage his responsibility. I wish to thank Dr. Martin Baker who kindly revised the English version of the paper.

In modern ideology the individual is felt to be the ultimate value. This feature is documented in two of its long‐lasting developments which lend progressively to disregard society as a coherent whole. First the quest for freedom as stated according to the Human Rights perspective opened by the Enlightenment. Second the Middle Ages’ tendency to relegate society to the “mystical body” of Christ and of king.

Holistic ideologies, in contrast to modern ideology, are summarized in their general socio‐cosmic structure, which shows society as the ultimate value not separated from nature. Anthropology is built upon this contrast between individualistic ideology and the holistic one.

Notes

This paper was first presented at the Espace Séminaire Philosophie et Anthropologie on “Relativisme‐universalisme‐holisme‐individualisme‐hiérarchie”, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 26–28 April 1989. A revised version was presented at the Seminar on “New Theories in Social Anthropology”, Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo (13–16 June 1989). I am indebted to Professor Signe Howell who organized and led the whole seminar and to all the Norwegian anthropologists participating in these four days discussions, I owe special thanks to Cécile Barraud, André Iteanu and Jos Platenkamp who discussed at length previous versions of the paper. Fully inspired by the works of Professor Louis Dumont, the propositions included in this paper do not of course engage his responsibility. I wish to thank Dr. Martin Baker who kindly revised the English version of the paper.