Culture as a personality or an organism?

Roy A. Rappaport and Ruth Benedict both held very strong opinions regarding the subject of culture and ritual. They lived in slightly different overlapping historical time periods, Benedict being influenced by WWII in the 18th century and Rappaport growing up during the Great Depression in the early 19th century. Influences of Franz Boas carried through the theories of both of these anthropologists. Although Benedict never succeeded in conducting her own fieldwork, she wrote ethnographies based on fieldwork done by Boas, this particular case focusing on the Kwakiutl of the Northwestern Coast of America. The focus of Rappaport’s fieldwork in this context is the Tsembaga of New Guinea. Benedict displays a more idealistic view of culture and ritual as opposed to Rappaport’s exceedingly materialistic perspective.

Ruth Benedict discusses her views of culture as personality-writ-large in her famous novel “Patterns of Culture”. This means that a culture is a magnification or reflection of the personalities of the people in a group. In other words, what one could say about a group of people could also be said about their culture. Benedict believes that what constitutes culture is not the material or external aspects but stems from a shared mindset, stating that “what really binds men together is their culture—the ideas and the standards they have in common,” (Benedict 1934:16). Basically, traits of a culture rely on inherent and intrinsic natural instincts. She emphasizes the notion that the individual and their broader culture share a “consistent pattern of thought and action” constantly intertwined through their principal ideals, motives, values and emotions (Benedict 1934:46). It is through this shared system of beliefs that core...

... middle of paper ...

...ture, specifically culture as a personality versus culture as an organism. Although Rappaport argues that culture is external and Benedict argues that culture is internal, I would argue that it is a mixture of both. Personality is largely affected by environment, and the external world can be changed by the actions of a group of people, relating to the common psychological argument of Nature vs. Nurture. While both of their arguments have valid aspects, I think a more efficient view of culture could be realized by combining both of their theories together.

In Benedicts point of view, rituals are driven by the need to have higher status, also from an inherent need for competition and superiority. While in Rappaport’s point of view in the context of the Tsembaga, materials are far more important than status, especially because they live in an egalitarian society.