Dr. Abdul Wahed Meshaal
Whoever reads the theoretical frameworks for both sciences will find a clear difference in their interests. The science of politics, according to what was stated in https://mawdoo3.com, is the science that is concerned with studying government and political systems, and how people compete for power and use it to rule the country), and this indicates To its reliance on abstract theoretical frameworks that enter the field of theorizing, and in many cases it is a translation of ideological frameworks that draw the features of those official systems. International law, international relations, political behavior, political theories, in addition to public administration, and public law), and we understand from that that political science is the science of intellectual theorization of those issues and its dependence on the idea of the art of the possible, and this is what prompted us to talk about the essential difference between it and anthropology Political, (political anthropology), which depends on field facts, which it considers part of the interest of social anthropology in field studies in societies that do not constitute a state, or what is called a society Fragmented groups (the clan and the tribe), which are societies that took thousands of years to form, unlike the establishment of the state, which took a much shorter period than the formation of the tribe, as these fragmented systems are societies with a heritage and value accumulation that depend on lineage relations, which give them the character of continuity, and organize them A set of customs and traditions, and leadership in it is described as inherited historical, and socially recognized by the passage of generations, as it represents a sacred symbolism for it, so the early pioneers of anthropology were interested in studying primitive societies, especially among them the anthropologist (Henry Main) in his book (Old Law, General 1861), as he revealed the comparison of Indo-European institutions about two revolutions in the process of societies: a transition from societies based on the center to societies based on contract, and the transition of social systems based on kinship to systems based on another principle, especially the principle – local contiguity – which determines The basis of joint political action – and this binary differentiation is at the basis of the ever-existing debate, and the reference that often remains is the book – The Old Society of its author (Louis Morgan), inspiring Friedrich Engels and the esteemed father of more Contemporary anthropologists, see George Bala Andre’s book: Political Anthropology, translated by Ali Al-Masry, University Foundation for Studies, Publishing and Distribution, Beirut, 1990, p. 23. Perhaps this reveals the dependence of political anthropology on ethnographic frameworks, and comparative cultural studies – ethnology – in revealing the facts of the field On human political practices and perceptions in societies organized by social laws, which showed the truth of this with what the English social anthropologist (Eva N. Pritchard) collected from research related to this interest, based on what he collected from research in this regard, as well as from the results of his field studies on a society The Nuer in Sudan, explaining the relationship between kinship systems and political systems, especially in societies that are not a state.
Based on this, there is a clear difference between the ancient science of politics and goes back in one of its sources to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who considered man as a political being, while political anthropology, which emerged in 1945 after the efforts of Eva Nez Pritchard, who linked the political and social, while the scope of political science He remained in the field of theorizing, which concerns regimes, the state, its various institutions, political relations, organizational and ideological formations, and competition for power.
Accordingly, political anthropology is related to man’s political relationships, the organization of family relationships, the nature of patriarchal authority or the illiterate authority, to the authority of clan or tribal leadership, as well as socio-political behaviors. In short, the essence of his interest in this science focuses on researching political relationships in fragmented societies. In which leadership extends to its ancient historical roots, organized by social norms and laws that resonate with the members of those societies, and they are transmitted through generations and remain present in their memory, while political science is concerned with building the state based on man-made laws necessitated by the nature of its institutional formation, and it is based in its entirety on The social contract and at a historical stage quickly change its leaders according to the existing political variables, and the interest of politicians does not stop at this point, but extends to international relations
“Proud twitter enthusiast. Introvert. Hardcore alcohol junkie. Lifelong food specialist. Internet guru.”