Herbert Spencer
In “The Social Organism,” Herbert Spencer stated that social organization is consequent on general natural causes, that actions appearing personal are, in fact driven by social force and the pressures of humans most basic wants. He has said that through the pursuit of self-interest, people will gradually all have necessities and be able to provide certain necessities to others, creating a mutually dependent society.
Spencer compares the evolution of societies with that of an organism. Just as every organism (plants, animals) increase in size, and progress from simple to complex, so do societies. That each becomes a collection of individual parts, working together as a singular entity. He states that the “survival of the fittest” will lead to a more perfect society. He compares the best and most developed societies to complex organisms, and those which were “unevolved” to more simple living things.
Franz Boas
Boas compares the development of cultures to that of plants and animals. He uses the example of analogous structures (those that develop independently, but serve similar functions). In trying to define anthropology as a science however, there is the problem of what criteria to use. Race, he says is an unreliable source of data, due to the fact that there are no distinct lines dividing race, and that more variation occurs within races genetically. He does mention environment as a variable (for example, Bergmann and Allen's rules on size of body and limbs in relation to climate) - but states that culture is in most cases, a stronger influence on development. He concludes that while there are certain data (population, diffusion of practices and ideas) that can be measured, the variability of the individual makes anthropology a "historical science", without a specific set of laws. The goal of anthropology, according to Boaz, is to "discover among all the varieties of human behavior, those that are common to all humanity."
Emile Durkheim
In "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life," Durkheim speaks to the truth that is inherent in religions of any structure. He states that religions "fulfill given conditions of human existence," and even those archaic religions serve a similar function as those that may be more complex in structure. He also makes this point in saying that "There is no religion that is not both a cosmology and a speculation about the divine." While opposing religions may see each other falsely, the same purpose is being achieved, and is the truth of those who pursue it.
Claude Levi-Strauss
The main idea Levi-Strauss took from structural linguistics is looking past the independent entities and into the relationships between them (269). Many terms "aquire meaning only if they are integrated into systems"(269). He used the example of the avuncular (uncle) term. This single word can have many different meanings depending upon the relationship given by a specific kinship system. Kinship systems have two aspects of their reality: the terms and the attitudes. While Radcliffe-Brown stated that "it is descent that determines the choice of oppositions," (273) Levi-Strauss argues that "Different forms of avunculate can coexist within the same type of descent" (275). Thus, he says kinship systems, like language are symbolically arbitrary, existing solely within human consciousness, and it is the meaning we prescribe which anthropologists should focus their study on (278).
Karl Marx/Frederick Engels
Marx and Engels say that history is defined through the modification and action of men. That mankind achieves separate distinction from animals the moment they start producing their own means of subsistence. The beginning of social organization evolved from this need to control and produce from the environment and eventually, leads to increasing population density, and to a greater necessity to produce for the population. In other words, men have created the society they now need to produce for. (P. 69-70)
I agree that this argument is sustainable to a certain extent. Societies are determined by the material culture they choose to produce, however production may not come from the individual society itself. There is a greater society of globalization in which certain individual societies interact with one another to achieve production for all.
Kathleen Gibson
Might primates be said to have culture? According to Kathleen Gibson, it really depends on the definition of the word culture. If the capacity to repeat and transmit information socially is considered to be culture, then yes. However, Gibson points out that there is no symbolism involved in these practices(196). Thus the use of complex forms of thinking and creating, or hierarchical mental construction (198) is at this time an exclusive characteristic of humans. This is not to say that somewhere down the evolutionary line (or branch) that non-human primates will be capable of developing such modes of thought, especially since many possess the same neural plasticity for learning ability (198).
Sherry Ortner
Ortner's article reminded me of a bit of reading by Ken Wilbur I had a couple of months ago for my Religious Studies class. He claims that horticultural societies were matrifocal egalitarian, with men still hunting, but women beginning agriculture with digging sticks and other methods that did not require strenuous labor. The momentus shift to agarian plowing required more physical strength, and thus the "power" of male dominance began. He says that this was a mutual descision for group benefit, that the males did not "decide" to oppress females. This parallels what Ortner said about male dominance being a "side effect, an unintended consequence of social arrangements made for other purposes" (439). I agree with her statement that men simply "lucked out" in being better suited for the types of cultural changes that came to be. My question is, could male "dominance" have become so popular had another cultural path been chosen? For example, if a technology other than one requiring physical force come about, would more societies have stayed matrifocal?
I believe that we as humans need several different perspectives in order to develop ideas of ourselves. How many times have your parents taught you their idea of how to best accomplish a task, only for you to realize years later that there is another way that works much better and more efficiently for you? What is best for one may not be for some. I find the same within social sciences, if we were to one day find the one perfect theory of culture, or power, or agency and retaught it over and over, it would eventually become so skewed and incorrect, because humans have such a great deal of fluctuation inherent to them. In providing several differing perspectives and theories, it allows the mind to look at culture and power holistically, not as a stagnant entity. I think there is greater experimental flavor to be experienced than the singular mush of a spoon-fed black or white theory.
*Page References correlate to Anthropology in Theory (Moore and Sanders)
No comments:
Post a Comment