Anthropology as Method, Mirror, and Corrective: The Relevance of the Discipline Today

As the concluding essay of this series, this piece engages closely with Prof. Vijoy S. Sahay’s recent lecture on the relevance of anthropology in understanding contemporary socio-economic and political complexity. Drawing on his arguments and situating them within Odisha’s own anthropological lineage, shaped by scholars such as L. K. Mohapatra, the essay reflects on how anthropology functions as a method, a mirror, and a corrective in today’s India.

Anthropology and the Question of Human Understanding

Prof. Sahay’s lecture begins from a foundational proposition: that every socio-economic and political issue is rooted in the complex interplay between nature and nurture. Anthropology, unlike more compartmentalised disciplines, accepts this interplay as its starting point. It studies human beings as biological organisms embedded in cultural systems, shaped by ecological constraints, conditioned by social environments, and influenced by mental frameworks. This holistic orientation is not a stylistic preference but a methodological commitment. Anthropology insists that human conduct cannot be meaningfully understood by isolating economic motives from cultural practices or political conflict from historical memory.

This perspective is particularly crucial in societies like India, where the social fabric is woven through layers of kinship, caste, ritual, labour, ecology, and belief. Development debates often rely on technologies, market assessments, or policy frameworks that assume universality, yet the lived realities of communities across India vary in ways that resist such generalisation. Anthropology offers the conceptual vocabulary to explain this variation. It takes seriously the rhythms of everyday life, the weight of inherited practices, the symbolic significance of rituals, and the emotional landscapes through which people interpret change.

It is here that Prof. Sahay’s emphasis intersects meaningfully with the work of L. K. Mohapatra, whose scholarship insisted on the grounded study of communities in Odisha. Mohapatra’s ethnographies on tribal societies, peasant life, kinship arrangements, and local economies exemplified an approach that refused to treat culture as an isolated domain. His work demonstrated that cultural understanding requires immersion, patience, and a willingness to listen to how people frame their own realities. This ethos is precisely what Prof. Sahay identifies as the core of anthropological thinking.

Nature, Nurture, and India’s Developmental Blind Spots

A central thread in Prof. Sahay’s lecture revolves around the inseparability of nature and nurture. Rather than reducing behaviour to heredity, or conversely, attributing all human tendencies to culture alone, anthropology maintains that both forces work simultaneously in shaping social life. This perspective gains analytical strength when applied to India’s development history.

Much of India’s policy thinking has historically relied on models derived from economics, political science, or administrative planning. These fields offer valuable insights, but their frameworks often assume that societies behave in predictable, rational, or linear ways. The anthropological view challenges this assumption. Human beings adapt through culturally mediated strategies, not solely through economic logic. Subsistence technologies, ecological knowledge, kinship alliances, religious obligations, and social expectations shape how communities respond to structural change.

Prof. Sahay’s reflections draw from the intellectual lineage of scholars who studied how societies organise their material life: from Morgan’s ideas on social evolution to Steward’s cultural ecology and Leslie White’s emphasis on energy capture. These frameworks situate human behaviour in its ecological and technological contexts. Marvin Harris’s materialism, which linked cultural practices to adaptive strategies shaped by resource use and energy expenditure, further supports this view.

In Odisha, the relevance of these theoretical perspectives becomes particularly visible. Mohapatra’s fieldwork repeatedly demonstrated how communities negotiated the pressures of modernisation, land reforms, industrial expansion, and administrative reorganisation. His observations on the transformation of tribal economies, the shifting relations between caste groups, and the adaptations of peasant households reveal the deep interconnections between ecology, culture, and social change. Prof. Sahay’s argument echoes this intellectual tradition: any attempt to address India’s socio-economic challenges without understanding cultural logic is bound to misread both the problem and its possible solutions.

The Contemporary Crisis in Indian Anthropology

One of the most urgent and sobering parts of Prof. Sahay’s lecture is his critique of anthropology’s declining presence in India. Despite being home to one of the most diverse social landscapes in the world, India has witnessed a consistent weakening of anthropological training, research infrastructure, and institutional recognition.

The erosion of anthropological depth takes many forms. There is a growing dependence on quick surveys, market-driven research templates, and reductive social studies that replace immersive fieldwork with superficial data points. Languages, oral histories, local epistemologies, and cultural practices are often left unexamined because they fall outside conventional metrics. In this climate, anthropology risks losing its disciplinary integrity.

Prof. Sahay also warns against the resurgence of orientalist impulses. Communities are increasingly represented through exoticising narratives, sensationalised accounts, or identity-based stereotypes. Without sustained ethnographic engagement, such depictions become not only inaccurate but harmful, shaping public perception and policy decisions in ways that distort the realities of people’s lives.

The crisis is compounded by institutional neglect. Departments shrink, research positions remain vacant, fieldwork support diminishes, and interdisciplinary collaboration becomes rare. In this environment, anthropology struggles to participate meaningfully in public debates on development, governance, social justice, or cultural transformation.

This decline stands in stark contrast to the intellectual vitality represented by scholars like Mohapatra, who established Odisha as a significant centre for anthropological scholarship. His work offers an implicit critique of the superficial trends that Prof. Sahay identifies. Mohapatra’s insistence on rigorous fieldwork, careful analysis, and contextual reading serves as a reminder of what anthropology can be when allowed to operate at its full potential.

Philosophical Depth: Between Liberation, Materiality, and Mind

Prof. Sahay moves beyond technical critiques to reflect on the philosophical terrain where anthropology operates. His discussion of Buddhism and Marxism is not an abstract comparison but an exploration of how different traditions conceptualise suffering and liberation. Buddhism situates suffering in desire and attachment, advocating self-discipline and ethical transformation. Marxism locates suffering in material relations and systemic exploitation, calling for structural change.

Anthropology becomes a bridge between these frameworks because it studies human beings at the intersection of material conditions and mental orientations. It examines how belief systems emerge from social structures, how social structures are justified through rituals, how rituals shape moral sensibilities, and how moral sensibilities influence political action. In this sense, anthropology does not privilege mind over matter or matter over mind. It studies the dialectic between the two.

This approach aligns with Mohapatra’s observations on everyday life in Odisha’s communities. His fieldwork showed that belief systems, labour practices, ecological adaptations, and social obligations are mutually reinforcing. Villagers cultivate land, perform rituals, regulate kinship exchanges, negotiate caste hierarchies, and interpret misfortune within frameworks in which material and symbolic dimensions are inseparable. Prof. Sahay’s reflection thus finds a lived counterpart in Mohapatra’s ethnographies, demonstrating how anthropology becomes a method for understanding not just societies, but the human condition itself.

Anthropology as Corrective in a Rapidly Changing India

The final segment of Prof. Sahay’s lecture emphasises anthropology’s corrective function. Contemporary India faces complex challenges: rural distress, displacement, ethnic tension, political polarisation, weakening community institutions, and fragmented public discourse. These challenges cannot be addressed solely through policy interventions because they are entangled with historical memory, collective aspirations, cultural logic, and local identity.

Anthropology can correct misunderstandings that arise when policies overlook cultural context. It can reveal how communities interpret development, how they negotiate change, and how their agency is shaped by local histories. It can unpack the symbolic dimensions of conflict, whether in land disputes, inter-caste relations, or regional movements. It can expose the longue-durée forces that shape political behaviour. It can help governments understand why reforms succeed in some areas and fail in others.

In Odisha, Mohapatra’s work demonstrated the value of such a corrective approach. His analyses of power relations within tribal communities, shifts in peasant economies, and the cultural norms governing exchange and reciprocity provided insights that continue to inform scholarship today. Bringing Mohapatra’s contributions into conversation with Prof. Sahay’s arguments allows us to recognise anthropology not only as a method of study but as a tool for public reasoning.

The Future of Culture & Society from an Anthropological Lens

As this series concludes, the themes explored across the essays come together in a broader reflection on cultural understanding, historical continuity, and intellectual responsibility. The first essay examined cultural fluidity and the non-linear movement of ideas across regions. The second essay revisited Odisha’s maritime memory to re-evaluate the assumptions surrounding Bali Jatra. This final piece turns inward, asking what tools we possess to understand the complexity of the society in which these histories, beliefs, and practices continue to evolve.

Prof. Sahay’s lecture presents anthropology as a discipline uniquely capable of interpreting India’s socio-economic and political realities. It argues that anthropology serves as a method for analysing complexity, a mirror for observing contradictions, and a corrective for addressing misinterpretations that permeate public discourse. When read alongside the intellectual legacy of L. K. Mohapatra, anthropology emerges not as an academic niche but as a necessary mode of inquiry for a society as layered as India.

If India is to engage thoughtfully with its present and envision a more equitable future, anthropology cannot remain peripheral. It must inform our debates, guide our policies, and deepen our understanding of the lived worlds that constitute this nation.

---

About the Series

• Essay I: Explores the principle of cultural fluidity and non-linear exchange across the Bay of Bengal. (READ HERE)

• Essay II: Traces Odisha’s Maritime Linkages with Southeast Asia and examines the confusion of identity surrounding Bali Jatra, the largest open-air trade fair of Asia. (READ HERE)

• Essay III: Revisits the anthropological legacy of L.K. Mohapatra, drawing from a lecture by Vijoy S. Sahay (Former HOD, Anthropology, University of Allahabad), and argues for the role of anthropology in addressing socio-economic and political challenges.