ABSTRACT
Modem social anthropology is still sometimes said to be in need of, or in process of constructing, a ‘dynamic’ or ‘more dynamic’ social theory. The more general relation between concepts of ‘static’ and of ‘dynamic’ is relevant here. ‘Static’ conditions are particular cases of the operation of forces in society which, for the time being, result in social movement which has no major or structural consequences. The anthropological contribution to dynamic theory lies in major part in the analysis of structures of interests and of power, of meanings and of values, not only at their ostensible ‘realistic’ level, but also as they express symbolically ideas of group identity and activity. As L. Coser has pointed out in an elaborate study, there is a long history of sociological concern with social conflict. From the great range of theoretical treatment in the field of social development, an anthropologist should perhaps select Kroeber’s monumental Configurations of Culture Growth.
