Anthropological Theories

Kroeber (Berkeley) and Kluckhohn (Harvard) against Parsons initially, after the publication of their work review the anthropological theories, in Culture, in an attempt to specify what gives of himself the anthropological conception of culture. Later, it is introduced use of the word culture in plural. Following Boas – in words of Kuper: founding father of the anthropology culture, is written about Cultures. Tylor speaks of which the culture is the nonbiological inheritance of the species. Ethnology explains the nature and sources of the human progress. The civilizations cross the racial borders (boasiano). Lowie and Goldenweiser (boasionaos) and even Kroeber, insist on which a culture must try historically more than like an all functional one.

In its work Culture, genuine and spurious, Sapir it speaks of which the genuine culture of a subject must form organic in surroundings of rich communitarian culture. And it is this culture the one that is due to turn into object of the anthropology. Click New York museums to learn more. Mead, another great student of Boas, affirms that it is the moment for doing against the development of the problematic one in the connections between individual and what he is distinguishing of the culture in which servant has itself. Geertz and Schneider solves by itself that the culture must study like an independent system, investigated. In its hands, the parsoniana theory went as well refining and moving away of wrapping up of the theory of the action.

The culture is a system of symbols and meaning, being the norms somewhat different. With respect to method for its study, Parsons at the end of the article, Geertz is aligned with him also suggests the intuitive interpretation and the psychoanalysis. The symbolism is a conditioner that cannot be suppressed to the human knowledge; it is for that reason that if the human world is symbolic, it only fits the interpretation, since the hermenutico procedure takes place implicitly in all understanding.