In ways these ends have been attained. The

In other words, there is much implicit comparison both in data gath­ering and data processing the second justification for anthropology being a comparative discipline is for work in the library rather than in the field.

From the days of unilinear evolution anthropologists have utilized the available ethnographic materials to serve many dif­ferent ends. There are marked differences in the ways these ends have been attained.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The common feature of all these ventures is the fact that with very few exceptions they all involve inter-cultural or cross- cultural explicit comparison.

Whatever Gopalasarana observes boils down to three things:

(1) Social anthropology accepts unquestionably comparison while generating data. This assumption relies entirely on comparison as the main purpose of fieldwork. He calls it implicit design of com­parative process.

(2) In the analysis which is made on the desk and not in the field, comparison is very clearly or distinctly accepted as a mode of in­terpretation. This is obviously explicit comparison.

(3) In the method of comparison two things are done: within a soci­ety inter-cultural approach is taken and outside the society cross-cultural access is adopted.

Thus, social anthropology in India generates and analyzes data im­plicitly, and finally, makes both intra-cultural and inter-cultural analyses.