WHITE (White) Leslie Alvin( The American anthropologist, a cultural)
Comments for WHITE (White) Leslie Alvin
Biography WHITE (White) Leslie Alvin
(1900-1975) - Amer. anthropologist, a cultural. The first years studench. life have. passed in Louisiana. and Columbia University-max, where he majored in psychology and philosophy. Written by a master's thesis. psychology under the guidance of Professor. R. Woodworth. The first course on the anthropology listened in 1922-24 he. y A. Goldenweiser, the New School for Social Research (New York City). There is a course on the history, economics, behavioral psychology and psychiatry. It has been two courses in clinical. psychology at the Manhattan hospital for a long time hesitated in the choice of Prof.. sphere, trying to drastically change their lives and engage in clinical. psychology (in psychiatry). However, and in 1924 he decides to go to Chicago University Press for the study of sociology, in order to find answers to the long-tormented his question: what determines the behavior lyudeyN Soon. realized that its area of interest is more in line anthropology. According to William himself, coming in sociology, he discovered that there prevails a theory and there are no facts, and anthropology, on the contrary, he was struck by the abundance of factual material and the complete absence of a theory. Nevertheless, he continued his study of anthropology, working, respectively, the spirit of the time, in the tradition of the school Boas. In 1927 I. received Doctor. degree of Ph.D. thesis. 'Med. communica-Island South-West '.
The acquired knowledge and experience in the field of philosophy, psychology and sociology have prepared and largely predetermined his theory. activities in anthropology.
Since 1927, he received a teacher of sociology and anthropology at the Univ g. Buffalo, then in 1930 transferred to the department of anthropology at Michigan State University Press, where he remained until his retirement. Since 1944, this office is headed. During work I. Department of Anthropology, Michigan, Zap has become one of the most powerful in the United States, its instructors. composition grown from one to seventeen people, lecture courses have. 'The Evolution of Culture' and 'The mind of primitive man,' attended by 250 students. However, his career was going very slowly, especially the first ten years, despite the fact that these were years of intensive field research, theor. work, regular publications. It was not so much critical. colleagues to attempt to have. revive the concept of cultural evolution, as in frank persecution by conservative rel. groups of staff for his commitment to evolutionism. Recognition colleagues of scientific achievements and activities have. as the organizer of the training takes place on late 50-ies. Appreciation scientist confirmed that it is constantly invited to the University you are leading the U.S. (Chicago, Yale, Columbia, Harvard and California) for reading courses in anthropology, and in 1962 volunteered to lead Amer. anthropological. association.
Basic Fixes. contribution U. the development of societies, . Science has become justification for the following three provisions: the creation of a new concept of the concept of culture, redefining the concept of cultural evolution and its application for analysis of human culture, study the science of the Arts - Cultural,
Offering their understanding of what culture is, U. revived the tradition, based Gaidar and seen many others. anthropologists.
Defining Y. relies on the ability, inherent to man, to attach symbolic. important thoughts, actions and objects and to perceive the characters.
The class of phenomena called simvolatami, Y. attributed the idea, . beliefs, . relations, . feelings, . action, . behavior, . customs, . laws, . Institutions, . works and art forms, . language, . tools, . tools, . mechanisms, . Utensils, . Ornaments, . fetishes, . conspiracies etc., . and proposed to define the context of their study - somatich,
. or ekstrasomatichesky. In the case when symbolized objects and phenomena seen in conjunction with the body, ie. in somatich. context, their interaction should be called human behavior, and the science that studies them - psychology. In ekstrasomatich. the context of the relationship of these (simvolich.) objects and phenomena can be called culture, and studying their science - cultural studies.
Y. saw the advantage of this approach is that it gave an opportunity to clearly and essentially make a distinction between culture and human behavior. Culture, in this case, determined in the same manner as objects of study of other sciences, ie. in terms of real objects and phenomena existing in the objective world.
Between behavior and culture, psychology and cultural studies have. conducted exactly the same difference that exists between speech and language, speech, psychology and linguistics.
Anthropologists define culture as an idea, an abstraction or as a behavior (Goebel, U. Taylor, Beals, Hoydzher and others) argued that material objects can not be culture, whereas with t.zr. tradition of ethnographic and archaeological material culture of denial seems absurd.
Approach I. leads away from this dilemma, since simvolizirovanie is a common factor of ideas, attitudes, actions and objects. There are three kinds simvolatov: 1) the ideas and attitudes, 2) external actions, and 3) material objects, all of them can be considered in ekstrasomatich. context, all of them can be considered culture. And this, according to W., is a return to the tradition of cultural anthropology: the same was said Taylor, Lowe, Uissler.
Thus, by definition, W., culture is a class of objects and phenomena that depend on human capacity for symbolization, and dealt with in ekstrasomatich. context. This definition has armed anthropologists real, tangible, knowable subject of study.
The position of extreme antievolyutsionizma, perceived by Goldenweiser in early anthropological. Career U., shaken from his arrival in studench. audience as a teacher. The need to uphold the concept of school Boas in the lecture course on anthropology, youthful interest in Natural Science. sciences led him to ponder why the methodology is widely used in natural sciences, is subjected to harassment in society, science.
Field studies of the Seneca Indian culture, and the subsequent appeal to the works of Morgan 'ancient Reports of' and 'League of the Iroquois' produced a turn in the minds of the scientist. Acquainted with the publ. works, and then with the archives Morgan, U. was really puzzled by the fact that critics of evolutionism, as a rule, do not give trouble to objectively assess the achievements and mistakes of Morgan and other evolutionists - they treated as an armchair scientists who had no dealings with etnogr. reality and engaged in 'armchair speculation'.
Changing methodology. Y position. occurs gradually, the awareness of the need to use Evolutionary. theory for the study of culture final shape to the early. 30-ies.
Analyzing the history of evolutionism in cultural anthropology, Y. pointed out that Boas and his followers were opposed to the theory of cultural evolution, explaining that the very theory of evolution had been borrowed from biology, where it was relevant, but its application to the analysis of cultural phenomena is incorrect and absurd. In a lecture delivered at Columbia University are in 1907, Boas stated that the fundamental ideas of evolutionists (such as Tylor, Morgan) should be understood as the application of the theory of biological evolution to mental phenomena. Similarly, there were also Lowe, Goldenweiser, Sapir, Radin, Benedict, Herskovits, and other.
Several publ. works (in t.ch. in Article. 'The concept of evolution in cultural anthropology') U. proves that the theory of cultural evolution is not connected with the teachings of Darwin and not borrowed from biology. These ideas date back to antiquity. Thus, in the preface to 'the ancients on-woo' Morgan cites Horace, but not Darwin. The origins of this theory can be found in the works of Ibn Khaldoun, Hume, Condorcet, Kant, von Herder, Bachofen, Comte, and many. dp. Scientists who had no relationship to biology.
Taylor and Spencer also borrowed the concept of evolution or Darwin, or of biology. Philosophy of evolution Spencer ( 'hypothesis of development' (1852)) was born seven years before 'The Origin of Species' etc..
The theory of evolution in the annex to the culture, with t.zr. U. as simple as in the annex to the biology. Neither stage of development of civilization does not come by itself, but grows or develops from the previous stage. This is - OCH. principle, to-ing must be firmly grasped every scientist who wants to know the world, in a rum-he lives, or past history.
Another reason for underestimating or soznat. distortion of the theory of cultural evolution has become, according to W., the confusion that arose in the assessment of cultural processes and how they interpret. He singled in the culture of three well-defined process, and, according to them, three ways of interpreting. These are: 1) a temporal process to-ing is hronologich. sequence of individual events, it examines the history, 2) a formal process, . to-ing is the phenomenon in timeless, . Structural and functional aspects, and 3) formally temporary, . representing the phenomena in a temporal sequence of forms, his interpretation is engaged evolutionism,
. Tourist Office. should be distinguished history., formal (functional) and the evolution. processes. However, in anthropology Lane. gender. 20 in. was widespread t.zr., according to Roy, there are only two ways to interpret culture: 'historical' and 'scientific'. According to her, the story deals with the description hronologich. number Dep. occurring events. History. explanation must consist in the reproduction of the preceding events, ie. explanation of the cultural phenomenon would be in relating it to what happened earlier.
'Scientific' interpretation, according to these views, not related to the time sequence of events, nor with their uniqueness, but only with their general similarity. These analogies are described by generalizations.
In culture, there are two separate, clearly delineated process, each of the k-ryh is temporary in nature: the history. and the evolutionary process. Anthropologists, for-rye differ only 'history' and 'science', were unable to distinguish between these two time process. Thus, Boas calls Darwin's evolutionary approach 'historic', Radcliffe-Brown suggested calling hist. method of analysis of the developmental stages of cultural phenomena, etc. Two decomp. such interpretations are called 'historic' in virtue of the fact that they both examine the time series of events. U. rightly notes that just as well be called turtles 'bird', as they both lay eggs. 'Principles of Sociology' Spencer and 'ancient Reports of' Morgan is no more 'history of civilization', . than a treatise on human evolution - the history of race, . or a treatise on the evolution of currency - the history of commerce and banking, . or monograph on the rise - a biography of Rights,
Evol. approach is not associated with a unique event, its specificity - to identify common properties. Thus, the study of riots from t.zr. formal temporal approach is as follows. read: A revolt of interest to us is not what it differs from the others, but what it is similar to other rebellions. Time and place have no meaning, is important to us as such a revolt, we need to formulate some general postulates, to-rye can be applied to any rebellion. We are interested in universal, to-heaven can explain all the particular.
Evol. process in the neck-ryh aspects reminiscent. formally functional. It is associated with hronologich. sequence, as well as historical: B follows A, but is preceded in. Evol. process is associated with the form and function: one form grows out of another and grows into a third, it is associated with progression of forms in time. In this process, the time sequence and shape is significant, the two merge into an integrated process of change.
Important place in the minds of. the development of culture is the energy. the concept of cultural evolution. He proceeded from the fact that culture is an ODA. order of phenomena and can be described according to their own principles and laws. Singling out the principles of interaction between cultural elements and cultural systems in general, he considered it possible to formulate the laws of cultural phenomena and systems. Considering humane. genus as a whole, the set decomp. cultures and cultural traditions should also be interpreted as a unity, ie. human culture. Thus, it becomes possible to trace in outline the development of human culture until the present day.
Analyzing culture as an organized, integrated system, Y. allocated within this system of three subsystems of culture: Tekhnol., social and ideological. These three categories constitute the cultural system as a whole, they are interrelated and each affects the other and, in turn, feeling the impact of. But the force of impact in different directions varies. Hd. role in the interaction of subsystems is the technological. Man - Biology. view and, therefore, culture in general, depends on how to adapt to the natural environment. Thus, a man needs food, shelter, protection from enemies, etc.. He should ensure himself that, to survive, and do so only if he can help techniqu. funds. U. concludes that the techniqu. system of primary and most important by value; depend on it human life and its culture. Social systems are secondary and auxiliary. character in relation to technology, in fact, any social system is a function of technological. Without denying the importance of social and ideological. (filos.) subsystems, Y. provides technology as a determinant of any culture.
Finding the key to understanding the growth and development of culture in the techniqu. subsystem, the operation to-swarm is a dynamic and linked to the cost of energy, he finds that everything - the cosmos, human culture - can be described, based on the concepts of matter and energy.
The primary function of culture to meet human needs for food, shelter, means of defense and attack, adaptation to kosmich. environment and reproduction is the extraction of energy and use it for the benefit of man. Therefore culture appears to us as a complex thermodynamic. system. With techniqu. means the energy is extracted and used. Functioning of culture as a whole is determined necessary for this amount of energy.
Traced the history of cultural development before the age of atomic energy, U. Identify neck-rye laws of this development: ceteris paribus, . Culture evolves, . as increasing the amount of energy, . consumed per year per capita, . or at least increase the effectiveness of tools, . with ryh to-use energy,
As a result, highlighting in any cultural system of three OCH. factor - the amount of energy used per year per capita; efficiency techniqu. means by ryh to-energy is extracted and put to the service of man, the volume of manufactured goods and services to meet human needs - I. finds, . that the level of cultural development, . measured based on the number produced per capita for goods and services to meet human needs, . determined by the quantity produced per capita energy efficiency and technological means, . using k-ryh this energy is used, . and Tourist Office,
. formulates the law of evolution of culture or 'Act White'.
The answer to the question posed in his youth, what determines the behavior of people, I. found by analyzing culture as an object of study for the new 20 in. - Science Cultural Studies. It is safe to say that his book 'The Science of Culture' was a turning point in establishing a new tradition of humanities. It was not the first in a series of publications that have arisen during the debate on the necessity and possibility of providing separateness, cultural sciences, but. is it were the first to identify a substantive field of cultural studies, to justify the use of the term 'cultural studies' for the science of culture and offer OCH. approach allows us to investigate the culture of mankind as a whole - the system.
Cultural Isolation of cultural anthropology was estestv. continuation of the tradition amer. anthropological. Schools. In fact. began with the synthesis of the theoretical formation of Ethnology, the idea of Cultural Studies is a qualitatively new level of development of science - from the endeavor. etnogr. descriptions etnol. compare the study of local cultures, to identify patterns of a human. culture in general.
The search for determinants of a human. individual and collective behavior led to the emergence of sociology and social psychology. However, with t.zr. U. dwell on this, do not go further would be to miss the fundamental difference between humans and all other animal species. Distinguishable from other personal and social systems, the researcher comes to a fundamental difference between man and other biol. Species: if we consider the behavior of a dog or a monkey, individually or in the social aspects, a determinant appears biol. organism, the human species on the symbolic. level of behavior varies with changes ekstrasomatich. Cultural factors. Humane. behavior - is a function of culture: A = f (C). Change culture, change and behavior. U. accordingly concludes that it is not on of the group or close the number of determinants of a human. behavior. For the human species itself is a group defined by cultural tradition: whether it is craft guilds, clan, poliandrich. family or order of chivalry, depends on its culture. The opening of this class of determinants and separation using logical. analysis of these ekstrasomatich. cultural determinants of the biological - has become one of the most important steps in science. The most significant was just opening a new world - the culture. U. was convinced that the 'discovery' of culture ever get up in the history of science on a par with geliotsentrich. Copernican theory or the discovery of cellular basis of all life forms.
Realizing that the profound changes in science laws assert its way slowly, Y. notes that humanity, even when talking about the educated strata of the Society, it took many years to recognize geliotsentrich. theory of the structure of the solar system and develop the possibilities inherent in it. Hostility and resistance to meet openly and research psychoanalysts unconscious. Consequently, there is nothing particularly surprising in the fact that the current progress of science in the new area - the realm of culture - meets a certain resistance and resistance.
Explaining humane. behavior, we act as if the culture had its own life, even as if it had its own existence, regardless of the human race. A similar method is used in many advanced fields of science such as physics. In culture is moving in the same direction and is of the same views and interpretations of the same technique.
Using modeling techniques, we can view culture as if it were independent of human. This is - effective techniques of interpretation, a solid scientific method.
The next task, to-heaven appeared to have. when describing the new science - a problem terminologich. nature, namely, the problem of determining the names.
His proposed the word 'cultural studies' provoked a strong reaction colleagues as 'barbarism' (combining Latin. and Greek. roots), a dangerous word, not giving anything new, etc.. U. insisted that the word 'cultural studies' highlights Rui-neck region and identifies some real science. By doing this, 'she encroaches on the first right of sociology and psychology. Of course, it makes even more than an attempt on them, she assigns them. Tourist Office. It clarifies that the resolution of ODA. scientific problems does not lie, as anticipated before, in the field of psychology and sociology, but belongs to the science of culture, T. e. can only be carried out by it, . and psychologists have been reluctant to recognize, . that there are problems, . Related to human behavior, . k-rye are outside their areas, and they tend to show resentment and oppose science-upstart, . claiming them their rights. '(The Science of Culture,
. NY, 1949). And yet, insists William, what is the science of culture, if not kulturologiyaN If the invention of a new word is needed to identify new quality, that word would be creative: the word 'cultural studies' is creative. nature, it argues, and defines a new science, logic and history. The largest in this way were the following phenomena: a study of peace and human rights, ie. development of anthropology, then, to. 19 - beginning. 20 in. selection of a new object of study - society and the formation of sociology as a ser. 20 at. When formed ideas about the culture of mankind as an integral unit, with its own laws of existence and development and to be inde. study began forming Cultural. Cultural Studies (summary of his arguments U.) - very young branch of science. After several centuries of astronomy, physics and chemistry, Multi base. decades of development of physiology and psychology of science is finally turned its attention to the fact that most defines a human. human behavior - in its culture.
Persuasion In. in, . that cultural studies - a promising science, . necessary for knowledge of, . that defines the human in man, . fully reflected in his latest work 'The concept of cultural systems', . where he considers the processes of becoming a global cultural system and gives a forecast of development of human culture to the late,
. 20 in