Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:08:40.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Method In Cultural Anthropology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

John Hast Weakland
John Hast Weakland*
Affiliation:
46 West 88th Street New York 24, N. Y.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Those—other social scientists as well as laymen—who have read recent studies of national character and culture by anthropologists, while not having had experience in this field themselves, often seem to believe that the results which such anthropological investigators obtain are interesting, but that the methods used were intuitional, magical, or just invisible. The status of the work is cast in doubt, as falling short of an ideal that scientific description and analysis must be reproducible by any observer to whom a set of techniques of the discipline has been communicated. This paper attempts to show why and how such a belief is erroneous, and then to describe some of the fundamentals of method in current cultural anthropology as used in research and as related to the general structure of scientific method today.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1951, pp. 55 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

∗

In this paper, for reasonable convenience the simple terms “anthropology” and “anthropologist” are often used. Strictly speaking, reference is not to anthropologists in general, but only to those whose specialty is the field usually called “culture and personality” studies. There is yet no really convenient and accurate term for either this field or the workers in it, as distinct from the quite different other fields of anthropology, and to which this paper definitely does not refer.

References

1. Bateson, Gregory. “Experiments in Thinking about Observed Ethnological Materials,” Philosophy of Science, 8, 53–68 (1941).10.1086/286669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bateson, Gregory. “Some Systematic Approaches to Culture and Personality,” Character and Personality, XI, 1, 76–84 (1942).Google Scholar
3. Benedict, Ruth. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., (1947).Google Scholar
4. Bennett, John W. “The Study of Cultures,” American Sociological Review, 13, 672–687 (1948).10.2307/2086820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Devereaux, George, “The Logical Foundations of Culture and Personality Studies.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, 7, 110–130 (1948).10.1111/j.2164-0947.1945.tb00186.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Freud, Sigmund. A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (Tr. Joan Riviere), New York, Liveright, 1935.Google Scholar
7. Gorer, Geoffrey. Japanese Character Structure. Mimeographed, Institute for Intercultural Studies, New York, 1942. pp. 1–2 give a summary of theoretical premises.Google Scholar
8. Hagood, Margaret J. Statistics for Sociologists. New York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941. pp. 302–3, 345, 404–5.Google Scholar
9. Henderson, L. J. Pareto's General Sociology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1935. pp. 10–16.10.4159/harvard.9780674493155.c2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kardiner, Abram. The Psychological Frontiers of Society. New York, Columbia University Press, 1945. p. 4.10.7312/kard94036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Koffka, Kurt. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935. pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
12. Lewin, Kurt. “Vectors, Cognitive Processes, and Mr. Tolman's Criticism.” Journal of General Psychology 8, 318–345 (1933).10.1080/00221309.1933.9713191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Mead, Margaret. “Research on Primitive Children,” in Manual of Child Psychology (ed. Carmichael, C.). New York, Wiley, 1946.Google Scholar
14. Ruesch, Jurgen, and Bateson, Gregory. “Structure and Process in Social Relations,” Psychiatry 12, 105–124 (1949).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Tomkins, Silvan S. The Thematic Apperception Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1947.Google Scholar