\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Culture and Personality<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Culture and <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Basic idea:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The study of <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Approaches:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The approaches A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n A. Anti \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Despite of the psychological <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n B. <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n The approach of \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>For them Culture and personality are \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>They argue that personality <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n MEAD\u2019S CONTRIBUTIONS:<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Margaret Mead was a She was a student of Ruth And so, as Mead herself described the goal of her research: Starting as a She continued to write on Photography was not as C. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Mostly influenced by Geza Roheim <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n D. The Abraham Cardiner\u00a0 <\/span>(1939) a <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Further reading:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Levine and Thomas Barfield Philip Bock <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.webster.edu\/~woolflm\/margaretmead.html<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.as.ua.edu\/ant\/Faculty\/murphy\/cult&per.htm<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\npersonality is the name of a broad unrecognized movement which brings cultural
\nanthropology, psychology and psychiatry together from about 1928 to 1955. After
\n1960s the field becomes known as psychological anthropology. The primary aim is
\nto study human experience, facts and artifacts from a dual socio-cultural as
\nwell as psychological point of view. Its founders are Margaret Mead, Edward
\nSapir, are all students of Franz Boas. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nculture and personality seeks to understand the growth and development of
\npersonal or social identity as it relates to the surrounding social environment
\n(Barnouw 1963).\u00a0 More specifically Mead argues that culture plays role in
\nthe development of individual psychology. For Benedict emotional status are
\ntypical of particular culture. Sapir shows that people of the same society
\nrecognizes its culture differently. In other words, through the examination of
\nindividual personalities, broader correlations and generalizations can be made
\nabout the specific culture of those members.\u00a0 This has led to examinations
\nof national character, modal personality types and configurations of
\npersonality. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nrange from positivism to various hermeneutic humanism. The approaches can be
\nbroadly categorized into the following:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Anti culture personality
\nposition.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Personality is culture view or
\nconfigurationalist approach. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Reductionist position<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Personality mediation view<\/span><\/p>\n
\nculture personality position:<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n
\ninclination of major contemporary theorists such as Lasswell (1930, 1948, 1968)
\nthe institutional social science did not accept the assumptions on which
\nculture and personality theoretical position is based. The influence of
\nDurkheim and positivistic philosophy left little space to bring subjective
\nperspective.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nPersonality is Culture or Configurationalist approach (Special emphasis on Margaret Mead)<\/b><\/span><\/u><\/p>\n
\nMargaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and some of their co-workers is known as Configurationalist
\napproach or personality is culture view. They applied the relativist approach
\nto the study of Personality. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nboth configurations of behaviour that are manifested and carried by individuals
\nas characteristic of a group. These two are also psychologically interpreted in
\nindividual behaviour or in collective products such as myth, ritual, art,
\nrecreation, politics etc. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nrepresents an aspect of culture, in which emotional responses and cognitive
\ncapacities of an indivifual are programmed in accordance with the overall
\ndesign or configuration of his culture, i.e., the cultural patterning of
\npersonality (Mead 1928, 1932, 1935 Benedict 1934a, 1934b, 1938, 1939).<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndistinguished anthropologist, an intellectual and a scientist. She is the
\nauthor of numerous books on primitive societies and she also wrote about many
\ncontemporary issues. Some of the areas in which she was prominent were
\neducation, ecology, the women’s movement, the bomb, and student uprisings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nBenedict. Her monograph Coming of Age in
\na work done under the guidance of Franz Boas. Boas went on to point out that at
\nthe time of publication, many Americans had begun to discuss the problems faced
\nby young people (particularly women) as they pass through adolescence as
\n“unavoidable periods of adjustment.” Boas felt that a study of the
\nproblems faced by adolescents in another culture would be illuminating.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n“I have tried to answer the question which sent me to
\nAre the disturbances which vex our adolescents due to the nature of adolescence
\nitself or to the civilization? Under different conditions does adolescence
\npresent a different picture?” To answer this question, she conducted her
\nstudy among a small group of Samoans \u2014 a village of 600 people on the island of
\nTa\u2018u \u2014 in which she got to know, live with, observe, and interview through an
\ninterpreter 68 young women between the ages of 9 and 20. She concluded that the
\npassage from childhood to adulthood \u2014 adolescence \u2014 in
\ndistress, anxiety, or confusion seen in the
\nexpected, this book upset many Westerners when it first appeared in 1928. Many
\nAmerican readers were shocked by her observation that young Samoan women deferred
\nmarriage for many years while enjoying casual sex but eventually married,
\nsettled down, and successfully reared their own children. In 1983, five years
\nafter Mead had died, Australian anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret
\nMead and
\nAnthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead’s major findings about
\nsexuality in Samoan society, claiming evidence that her informants had misled
\nher. After years of discussion, many anthropologists concluded that the truth
\nwould probably never be known, although most published accounts of the debate
\nhave also raised serious questions about Freeman’s critique (Appell 1984, Brady
\n1991, Feinberg 1988, Leacock 1988). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nconfigurationalist, Mead wrote about national character.\u00a0 <\/span>Hired in World War II by the Office of
\nStrategic Services (OSS), Mead researched the national character of
\ncompared it to that found within the
\nfor interaction between the sexes differed, leading to many misunderstandings
\nbetween the two otherwise similar cultures.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ntopics which focused on women’s roles, childrearing, and other issues which
\nclarify gender roles in primitive cultures and aspects of American society.
\nThese works include “Male and Female,” “Balinese Character: A
\nPhoto Analysis,” “Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive
\nPeoples,” “Continuities in Cultural Evolution,” and “New
\nLife for Old.” She remained an active writer all of her life and her
\nbibliography from 1925-1975 runs more than 100 pages.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ncommon in Mead’s lifetime as it is now. However, she did a tremendous job of
\nintegrating her photography with her writing skills. In doing this she was able
\nto study CULTURE at a distance. This had never been done before in this manner
\nand served to be an advantage during World War ll in helping to understand the
\nenvironment of
\nand
\nReductionist position:<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n
\n(1950), it is an approach that gave exhaustive emphasis of mind over other
\nfactors of cultural and social behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n
\npersonality mediation view:<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n
\npsychoanalyst in collaboration with anthropologist Ralph Linton (1936, 1945),
\nhave formulated this idea. This view splits culture in to two halves. First,
\nmaintenance system, i.e., the determinants of personality. Second, projective
\nsystem, i.e., the outcome of personality. Therefore, personality acts as an
\nintervening factor. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nLevine (1966). Culture Behaviour and Personality.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n(1996) Dictionary of Anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n(1999). Rethinking Psychological Anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\n