Framing and Methodologies Crucial foundations exist in each theory that grant assumptions permitting conclusions to be drawn. Built upon this are methodologies that then are inherently influenced by a theory’s foundation. Configurational anthropology’s underlying assumption is that of cultural relativity, which has structured both the temporal and spatial alignment of the theory. Cultural relativity states that the beliefs and activities of a culture cannot be judged out of context. To ground her scientific comparison of cultures, Benedict began with cultural relativity to build up an understanding of cultural differences (Young 2005:3). These isolated worlds adhered to their own code of conduct, and to understand their cultures required an intimate study of their pattern. Benedict’s methodology in Patterns of Culture was then to remain “objective” in her analysis of ethnography and to wait for an overarching pattern to emerge.
…show more content…
Modell’s analysis of the ‘pattern’ implies that the method of transcribing a culture was an intimate process like interpreting a work of art, but in a mode of externality that denies the reflexivity of self. Thus art (or a culture) must be contemplated unencumbered by the effect it has on oneself (Modell 1989:35). But objectivity in this theory is questioned by the word choice that elicits her own cultural preferences. For example, Benedict gives a negative account of the “megalomaniac” and “eccentric” nature of the Northwest Coast natives (Modell 1989:38). Further, the validity of her theory falters as she starts labelling the pattern of a culture. The categorization of Dionysian, Apollonian, and Paranoid cultures as psychological ‘types’ heavily suggests a typography. This framing creates a generalization that both guides and constrains the anthropologist from understanding behavior outside of the predefined categories. Though Benedict implies that these are names for the overall character of a culture, the connotations of naming the Zuni ‘Apollonian’ concludes that their sober and restrained way of life does not have room for extremes of joy or sadness. She says the rule conforming Zuni cannot conceptualize torture, and yet witchcraft is evident in their society enough to cut off fingers of men to elicit confessions (Benedict 1934:89). This data is downplayed but still made apparent. The evident typology limits documentation of contrasting data, a concern expressed by Alfred L. Kroeber in his review. He urges Benedict to review material not isolated, and to analyze ‘resistant’ material that does not fall neatly into her seemingly typographical interpretations (Kroeber 1935:690). Harris’ cultural materialism similarly calls for an etic perspective, all together ignoring the emic understanding. …show more content…
This frame focuses on cultural behavior as explained from a historically conscious functionalist perspective, and that every action is a result of a complex cost benefit analysis made in response to environmental conditions (Sanderson 1978:367). The methodology employed includes geographic and statistical data to substantiate claims to population pressures by examining sex ratios, deforestation, and fauna. Consequently, the holistic and complex nature of a system is reduced to a very simplistic condition of environmental resources. As a book again for the non-anthropologist, Cannibals and Kings seemingly makes its argument for non-biologists as well. Reviewer Francis Johnston (1979) has expertly pointed out that a large basis of Harris’ argument on protein deficiency ignores the ethnographic data that documents groups in Melanesia surviving off of low protein diets (201-202). With protein deficiency as a building block, Cannibals and Kings’ argument for cannibalism in the Aztec empire is questionable. Harris’ methodology simply did not include all relevant biological and ethnographic data, limiting the holistic nature of his
Modell’s analysis of the ‘pattern’ implies that the method of transcribing a culture was an intimate process like interpreting a work of art, but in a mode of externality that denies the reflexivity of self. Thus art (or a culture) must be contemplated unencumbered by the effect it has on oneself (Modell 1989:35). But objectivity in this theory is questioned by the word choice that elicits her own cultural preferences. For example, Benedict gives a negative account of the “megalomaniac” and “eccentric” nature of the Northwest Coast natives (Modell 1989:38). Further, the validity of her theory falters as she starts labelling the pattern of a culture. The categorization of Dionysian, Apollonian, and Paranoid cultures as psychological ‘types’ heavily suggests a typography. This framing creates a generalization that both guides and constrains the anthropologist from understanding behavior outside of the predefined categories. Though Benedict implies that these are names for the overall character of a culture, the connotations of naming the Zuni ‘Apollonian’ concludes that their sober and restrained way of life does not have room for extremes of joy or sadness. She says the rule conforming Zuni cannot conceptualize torture, and yet witchcraft is evident in their society enough to cut off fingers of men to elicit confessions (Benedict 1934:89). This data is downplayed but still made apparent. The evident typology limits documentation of contrasting data, a concern expressed by Alfred L. Kroeber in his review. He urges Benedict to review material not isolated, and to analyze ‘resistant’ material that does not fall neatly into her seemingly typographical interpretations (Kroeber 1935:690). Harris’ cultural materialism similarly calls for an etic perspective, all together ignoring the emic understanding. …show more content…
This frame focuses on cultural behavior as explained from a historically conscious functionalist perspective, and that every action is a result of a complex cost benefit analysis made in response to environmental conditions (Sanderson 1978:367). The methodology employed includes geographic and statistical data to substantiate claims to population pressures by examining sex ratios, deforestation, and fauna. Consequently, the holistic and complex nature of a system is reduced to a very simplistic condition of environmental resources. As a book again for the non-anthropologist, Cannibals and Kings seemingly makes its argument for non-biologists as well. Reviewer Francis Johnston (1979) has expertly pointed out that a large basis of Harris’ argument on protein deficiency ignores the ethnographic data that documents groups in Melanesia surviving off of low protein diets (201-202). With protein deficiency as a building block, Cannibals and Kings’ argument for cannibalism in the Aztec empire is questionable. Harris’ methodology simply did not include all relevant biological and ethnographic data, limiting the holistic nature of his