Rational and Irrational View of Social Acts
Chen Yin An
National Tsing Hua University
2006 10 25
After reading, I think that we can trace back to Boasian’s argument about rational and irrational act. Benedict thinks that mankind’s acts are emotional and they do something depend on feeling and personal mentality. On the other side, Steward thinks that mankind’s acts result from reason and account. Then A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski continually construct theory from this argument among Boasian.
Radcliffe is a structural-functionalist, because he conceive social actions are not only emotional, but also, more important, functional. That is, social acts have purpose, like tools. Therefore, ‘culture’ is essentially synonymous with enculturation or (more accurately) socialization: a way of learning to live in a society. (Barnard 2000:71) Culture is a ‘way’, so they can assume it is a concrete thing and their oregano can assume that the system of society is dependent. It can separate from human like Durkheim assumption, ‘social facts as things’. (Durkheim 1895)
Additionally, Malinowski is a functionalist. And its theory is differ from structural-functionalism, because this thought still concern about human’s emotion and mental reason. This point is a big distinctive view between above social scientist. His view of society is start from everyone personal mentality, and broaden to groups of people. He assumes that ‘culture includes a gang of pros and a gang of physical and mental habit and it is a direct or indirect action for fulfilling their need. ( Malinowski 1931)’ (Huang Chih Huei: 168) So humankind is an emotional animal, and its sentiments have a force to decide culture and custom. Besides, Malinowski set a big turning point for anthropological research, participant observation. Its method of research has three principles: scientific spirit, participating experience and the method of statistics documentation by concrete evidence.
Although their views of social becoming are different, their views of history are similar. They think that history is not useful, maybe I can said, ‘functionalism approach to synchronic research.’
Briefly, their bone of contention is whether human action is rational or emotional then they have dissimilar view to what and how is culture. In my option, culture and personality have interaction and they affect each other including itself. Culture cannot be a dependent thing, because it is not immobile and it can change for everything. Every personal mentality has possibility of changing culture, but there are not everyone’s mind can do it. Changing culture need willing of group. However, I am not reject to Radcliffe, I think that we can depend on his view of culture to observe culture changes and phenomena; it is an easy way to know the culture.
And Malinowski claim that anthropology is science discipline and he emphasis on scientific spirit. Nevertheless, one of three principles of participant observation is statistics documentation by concrete evidence, that is, he thinks that there have ‘mental chart’ in researcher’s mind and they can use it to organise and collect documents. If researcher make use of this method, how anthropology can be science. Scientists involve in the research, clearly said, their subjective thoughts are imposed on object. It seem to be contradiction between participant observation, subject involve in object, and scientific research, subject divide from object. Moreover, can anthropologist avoid involving research? It is impossible that anthropologist can beyond environment, due to that every observation must pass through mind of researcher, then information can be categorised. Consequently, participant observation is not a scientific method, and which method can be reputed as scientific way maybe should be discussed.
Reference
Barnard, Alan
2000 Function and structural-functionalism In History and Theory in Anthropology. Pp.61-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, Émile
1982 [1895] Rules of the Sociological Method. Tr. by W. D. Halls. New York: The Free Press
黃智慧 Huang Chih Huei
1992，＜馬凌諾斯基＞。頁142-179，收錄於黃應貴編，《見證與詮釋：當代人類學家》。臺北：正中書局。
Chen Yin An
National Tsing Hua University
2006 10 25
After reading, I think that we can trace back to Boasian’s argument about rational and irrational act. Benedict thinks that mankind’s acts are emotional and they do something depend on feeling and personal mentality. On the other side, Steward thinks that mankind’s acts result from reason and account. Then A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski continually construct theory from this argument among Boasian.
Radcliffe is a structural-functionalist, because he conceive social actions are not only emotional, but also, more important, functional. That is, social acts have purpose, like tools. Therefore, ‘culture’ is essentially synonymous with enculturation or (more accurately) socialization: a way of learning to live in a society. (Barnard 2000:71) Culture is a ‘way’, so they can assume it is a concrete thing and their oregano can assume that the system of society is dependent. It can separate from human like Durkheim assumption, ‘social facts as things’. (Durkheim 1895)
Additionally, Malinowski is a functionalist. And its theory is differ from structural-functionalism, because this thought still concern about human’s emotion and mental reason. This point is a big distinctive view between above social scientist. His view of society is start from everyone personal mentality, and broaden to groups of people. He assumes that ‘culture includes a gang of pros and a gang of physical and mental habit and it is a direct or indirect action for fulfilling their need. ( Malinowski 1931)’ (Huang Chih Huei: 168) So humankind is an emotional animal, and its sentiments have a force to decide culture and custom. Besides, Malinowski set a big turning point for anthropological research, participant observation. Its method of research has three principles: scientific spirit, participating experience and the method of statistics documentation by concrete evidence.
Although their views of social becoming are different, their views of history are similar. They think that history is not useful, maybe I can said, ‘functionalism approach to synchronic research.’
Briefly, their bone of contention is whether human action is rational or emotional then they have dissimilar view to what and how is culture. In my option, culture and personality have interaction and they affect each other including itself. Culture cannot be a dependent thing, because it is not immobile and it can change for everything. Every personal mentality has possibility of changing culture, but there are not everyone’s mind can do it. Changing culture need willing of group. However, I am not reject to Radcliffe, I think that we can depend on his view of culture to observe culture changes and phenomena; it is an easy way to know the culture.
And Malinowski claim that anthropology is science discipline and he emphasis on scientific spirit. Nevertheless, one of three principles of participant observation is statistics documentation by concrete evidence, that is, he thinks that there have ‘mental chart’ in researcher’s mind and they can use it to organise and collect documents. If researcher make use of this method, how anthropology can be science. Scientists involve in the research, clearly said, their subjective thoughts are imposed on object. It seem to be contradiction between participant observation, subject involve in object, and scientific research, subject divide from object. Moreover, can anthropologist avoid involving research? It is impossible that anthropologist can beyond environment, due to that every observation must pass through mind of researcher, then information can be categorised. Consequently, participant observation is not a scientific method, and which method can be reputed as scientific way maybe should be discussed.
Reference
Barnard, Alan
2000 Function and structural-functionalism In History and Theory in Anthropology. Pp.61-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, Émile
1982 [1895] Rules of the Sociological Method. Tr. by W. D. Halls. New York: The Free Press
黃智慧 Huang Chih Huei
1992，＜馬凌諾斯基＞。頁142-179，收錄於黃應貴編，《見證與詮釋：當代人類學家》。臺北：正中書局。
全站熱搜
留言列表
BIBLE 
