Anthropological Foundations of Human Behavior: Culture

Anthropological HUMAN BEHAVIOR: THE CULTURE

First, a bit of "culture?: Culture, derives from the Latin verb" colere?, Which means growing. "Cultum?, In Latin, agriculture? and "Cultus? cultivation of land. In the eighteenth century, culture is used to refer to the spiritual. Worship, then, is an individual trait rather than social. There is a man "cult? or "uneducated?, terms that persist today. The new currents of modern sociology and anthropology redefine the term, understanding culture in a social sense.

In the current text, Kuper gives us a summary of how it paved the way towards a modern anthropological definition of the term culture: Parsons reviews the major theoretical debate: the positivitas and idealists. For the positivists, human behavior is explainable by the laws of behavior and motivation. The idealists, Germany was the cradle-deny, arguing that historical period has its own culture, which is the shaping of their individuals. The individual chooses irrationally, even expressing philosophical ideas or "mystical?. Parsons proposes a synthesis of idealism and positivism with his general theory of action, "The social system? (1951), taking ideas from Marshall, Pareto and Durkheim (all positivists) and the dualism of Kant. For Parsons, the objective world consists of objects "social?" Physical? and "cultural?, each forming a system: social, biology and personality of the individual, and cultural factors that interact to influence the decisions of each person without being reduced each other. Parsons wants to remodel the social sciences, dealing with: the psychology of the individual, social systems sociology and anthropology of the cultural system. Kroeber (Berkeley) and Kluckhohn (Harvard)-against Parsons at first, after the publication of his work, review the anthropological theories, in "Culture?, In an attempt to specify what gives him the anthropological conception of culture.

Later, we introduce the use of the term culture in the plural. Following Boas in the words of Kuper: founding father of cultural anthropology, writes about cultures. Tylor speaks of that culture is not biological heredity of the species. Ethnology explains the nature and sources of human progress. Civilizations cross racial boundaries (Boasian). Lowie and Goldenweiser (boasionaos) and even Kroeber, insist that a culture must be treated historically, rather than as a functional whole. In his book "Culture, genuine and spurious?, Sapir speaks of genuine culture of a subject must form organically in a culturally rich community. And it is this culture that should become the subject of anthropology. Mead, another great student of Boas, says it is time to address the development problem in the connections between what is individual and distinctive culture that has been raised. Geertz and Schneider resolved that culture should be studied as a standalone system, investigated by itself. In his hands, Parsonian theory was refined and turn away from the "swaddling of the theory of the action.

Culture is a system of symbols and meanings, with the rules otherwise. With regard to method of study, Parsons-end of the article, Geertz is aligned with it, suggests the intuitive interpretation as well as psychoanalysis. The symbolism is a key factor that can not be deleted human knowledge, that is why if the human world is symbolic, there is only interpretation, since the process occurs implicitly hermeneutic comprehension. On the other hand, linguistics is also a very attractive method, language as a builder of social reality, not just as a descriptor of reality. Language, interaction, working and building, and, therefore, necessary to understand human interaction.

Clearly, in my opinion, that modern anthropology needed to redefine some of its key concepts, having been one of the core in its constitution as a scientific discipline and the new conditions of social reality. Culture as a set of values, beliefs, attitudes and material objects that make up the lifestyle of a society and frame appropriate behavior. These arise from religion, moral norms that govern everyday interaction, reflected in the way of thinking, acting, relationship of individuals serving to maintain the social system in which that culture encompasses. Culture also has the ability to put limits on our actions, without necessarily remain static. From the twentieth century, concepts such as sexism, racism and rejection of homosexuals are being 'treated' irrational and unjust (slowly), increasingly favoring free expression. The culture at any time is not static or homogenous society. Changes and struggles are presented in the values ​​and customs of certain sectors of society. Society and culture are not impervious to the influences of others, consequently having cultural exchanges. These different cultural forces are the forces that allow them to advance society and culture in new ways.

Culture, in their transmission from generation to generation, can lead to dangerous play patterns: racial prejudice or present strong competition for the victory, and also has the ability to put limits on our actions, though no remains Static. Culture is a manifestation group, not individual, needs, interests and values ​​of a society. People identify with their group, allowing them to remain attached to it, finding identification values, less the fundamental role of culture in society: the identity and cohesion.

The worrying thing is the moment we are living: Globalization is its name. In my opinion, it is essential that a scientific discipline into question what about the culture of the people when they get all kinds of walls and barriers between nations, while the gap widens at the level of human development by accessing the different people. And that seems to have been the path begun by American cultural anthropology, Kuper tells us. The cultural identity of different peoples will generalize to a standardized culture, fostered by the powers who run the media and production. In the new socio-cultural scene, with a growing loss of the role of local and national institutions for the benefit of transnational conglomerates (they even changed the term 'multinational'!), Global markets, geographical mobility of workers, common currency ... , someone should answer the questions of belonging and identity of peoples, began the unstoppable march towards the global village as a paradigm of formation of the world for the homogenization of our world politically, economically, socially. What about culture?.

In my opinion, the approaches of cultural anthropology and social anthropology presented in the module, far from being at odds, should be complementary. The historical particularism of Boas and followers, and the concept of social structure should both be considered to carry out the study of culture. In the same way that anthropology should be complementary to other disciplines such as biology, psychology, sociology, etc ... It was absolutely necessary that anthropology ceases to be an "exotic adventure?.

I position, essentially, for Geertz in the sense that culture is an exchange of objects full of meaning and the anthropologist should develop a "depth description? to explain the meaning of human behavior so they can understand and perhaps predict, to achieve its development.

Vertices Psychologists - www.verticespsicologos.es

Cabinet of Madrid Capital: C / Caleruega, 88 Cabinet Las Rozas de Madrid: 106 Avenue Lazarejo

Phone: 91 631 44 93-690 75 85 35 - Email: info@verticespsicologos.es

© All rights reserved