If anyone knows of a photo, please respond!

A definite great read..Jim Bean

The beginning of our semester started with the Big Bang or the Historical foundations of Anthropological Theory producing studies on 19th Century evolutionism. We read about four authors, Herbert Spencer’s The Social Organism, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor’s, The science of Culture, Lewis Henry Morgan’s, Ethical Periods, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s, Feurbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook. Much is written from and about these anthropologists maximus: Spencer, “considered evolution to be one of the fundamental natural processes in the universe”, Tylor believed, “that cultural institutions were the product of rational thought” and Marx, “thought that all thought was a product of cultural institutions rather than their cause.”

The Foundations of Sociological Thought emerged further as we read another four authors: Emile Durkheim, What Is a Social Fact?, Emile Durkheim, The Cosmological Systems of Totemism and The Idea Of Class; Marcel Mauss, Excerpts from the Gift, Max Weber’s, Class Status, Party. Durkheim has been give, “responsibility for formulating some of the basic concepts of the disciplines and training the first generation of French sociologists at the beginning of the 20th Century”. Durkheim believed, “that the collective conscience originated in the communal interactions and experiences of members of a society.” His further belief is a tenant, “That the collective conscience was a psychological entity that, although carried by members of a society, superceded individual existence and could not be explained in terms of individual behavior.” Marcel Mauss was Durkheim’s nephew and wrote primarily about Durkheim’s work. Max weber was “concerned with the actions of individuals as well as social groups and rational behavior.

Culture Theory: during the early 20th century turns new phrases: Historical Particularism came into focus. It was pioneered by Franz Boas who believed, “that to explain cultural customs one must examine them from three fundamental perspectives: the environmental conditions under which they developed, psychological factors and in particular, historical connections,” thus the name: Historical Particularism. Authors read were Franz Boas, The methods of Ethnology, A.L. Kroeber, 18 Professions, Paul Radin, Right and Wrong. Benjamin L. Whorf, The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior To Language. A.L. Krober eblieved, “in integrating the 4 subfields of anthropology, and taught that a historical perspective was necessary to understand other cultures.” Paul Radin, “focused on the relationship between specific men and women and their own culture.” Benjamin L. Whorf developed, “the Sapir-Whorf hypothsis compsed of 2 elements, linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.”

Functionalism included the ideas of studying, “the material, social, physiological and psychological characteristics of different peoples,” which in turn is divided into psychological functionalism and structural functionalism. for this section
we read Bronislaw Malinowski, The Essentials of the Kula, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, On Joking Relationships, Max Gluckman and The Licence in Ritual. Malinowski believed, “that culture existed to satisfy seven basic human needs, nutrition, reproduction, bodily comforts, safety, relaxation, movement and growth.” Radcliffe-Brown was, “interested in deriving social laws governing behavior from the comparative study of different cultures than in cultureal description based on intensive fieldwork in one culture.” Gluckman is known for, “his analysis of political systems among different groups in Africa, especially the functions of feuds and conflicts.”

Women emerged studying Culture and Personality. We read Ruth Fulton Benedict, Psychological Types in the Cultures of the Southwest and Margaret Mead, Introduction to Sex and Temperament In Three Primitive Societies. The anthropologists in this group were, “interesed in the relationship;s between culture and the individual and were drawn to his ideas about the individual and were drawn to his ideas about the importance of early childhood and the significance of sexual symbolism.” Margaret Mead, “examined different aspects of the problem of how humans acquired culture and cultures relationships to individual personality.” Ruth benedict was, “a cultural relativist.”

To simply state that post moderinism states that there is “no absolute” truth I think would be an extreme oversimplification. There is a truth, but the means at which you come to it are extremely complex and the questions that arise in pursuit of it are near the infinite. Since, you’re right, its almost impossible for someone who is not the other person to understand that person 100%. For that matter, its almost impossible for that person to understand themselves 100% If you cant understand you, and I cant understand you, then how can we come to 100% understanding of you? The answer isn’t that we can’t, rather, that based on factual backing we come to a consensual understanding of you that we define as near 100% No theory, and I would love for someone to prove me wrong, claims to be 100% full proof. In gradeschool and almost every theory class i’ve taken, the base concept for theory is that theory is basically a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly, can be retested, has factual backing, and hasn’t been proven wrong(yet). But, the minute that theory HAS been proven wrong, all the basis for it goes down the drain.

To state that there is no definitive answer is going into surreal and existential thought. Which, mind you, isn’t science.

Post modernism doesnt claim to be able to define a definitive, rather I believe it claims what science really is, fact until proven otherwise.

Turgnev: “A nihilist is a man who does not bow to any authorities, who does not take any principle on trust, no matter with what respect that principle is surrounded.” (from Fathers and Sons, 1862)