Alfred Louis Kroeber was born in New Jersey in 1876 and later grew up in New York City where he attended a New York prep school. Kroeber was not only well-educated as a child, but he was also multilingual. It was arguably this strong educational background and history of assiduousness and discipline that contributed to Kroeber’s later success in an academic setting and in the field of Anthropology.
By 1917, Alfred Kroeber was already flourishing in his field. By 1897, Kroeber received Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in English from Columbia College. He then spent the summers of 1899 and 1900 in Wyoming studying and living among the Arapaho, Shoshone, Ute, and Bannock peoples. Also in 1900, Kroeber became the curator of the California Academy
…show more content…
He first states, “Human civilization or progress, which exists only in and through living members of the species, is so unmistakably similar to the evolution of plants and animals, that it has been inevitable that there should have been sweeping applications of the principles of organic development to the facts of cultural growth.” He then goes on to contrast the two in a way that is reminiscent of the modern-day debate of nature vs. nurture. He states, “Everyone is aware that we are born with certain powers and that we acquire others.” At this point, he emphasizes the role of mentality in evolution by explaining that, while the mental is caused by the organic, culture, on the other hand, operates on its own accord. Mentality, according to Kroeber, is simply the biological component from which culture is …show more content…
He explicates that geniuses and individual innovations are only created when culture is equipped to accept them. Here, his opposition of “the great man theory of history” is made clear when he emphasizes the idea that culture, as opposed to individuals, shapes human behavior.
In Configurations of Culture Growth, Kroeber expanded upon his idea of individual nature from “The Superorganic.” He looked at historical ‘greats’ from all of the major world civilizations and found that ‘greatness’ occurred in clusters throughout history. Most notably, he found that these clusters were temporally parallel to culture growth, evidence he used to support his idea that geniuses are created in the context of culture. He also noted that individual achievements accentuate, but do not explicate, what he called ‘cultural
Donald Kagan argues for the requisiteness of Western History by describing older cultures, and then explaining how these older cultures became a key influence in what our society has become today. He examines the ancient Greek, Christian, and English culture influences that helped form our country. Throughout his essay, his depth of historical research is quite evident. He uses historical research of past cultures to imply the necessity of knowing where we, as Americans, came from. This approach helps establish the author’s credibility, and makes his presentation more plausible.
On April 22, 1997 Jared Diamond, an American scientist, author, bio geographer, and professor, addresses the topic of patterns in human history and conquests taken place around A.D. 1500 in “Why Did Human Unfold Differently Continents for The Last 13,000 Years?” to the Edge Foundation. Diamond uses proximate reasons like military and technological advantages, the spread of contagious diseases introduction by the Europeans, the political organization and writing. I agree with his views that other things being equal, the rate of human invention is faster and the rate of cultural loss is slower in areas with with competing societies and in contact with societies elsewhere. I believe he used more proximate reasoning because those are most commonly known. His purpose is to understand so we don’t repeat history. Also he wants to provide us with a convincing alternate explanation to the currently racist in order to eradicate racist theories. He adopts an informative tone for his audience members of the Edge Foundation and others interested in the topic. Diamond's approach on analyzing human evolution takes a more scientific route. History and biology are both intertwined in his reading.
He defines culture in two different ways in one he claims culture as part of a “Technology of Control”. He goes on to explain his reasoning by saying people in today’s societies follow their cultural boundaries in fear of having consequences if they were not to follow them. He explains how the consequences would not be severe but little implements similar to being the ‘odd’ one in your society. In the other definition he explains how he believes culture can also be described as a “Particular Network of Negotiations”. If you obey you are rewarded if you do not then it would lead to you eventually being blamed by your society. This is where Edna Pontellier comes into
"Whereas animals are rigidly controlled by their biology, human behavior is largely determined by culture, a largely autonomous system of symbols and values, growing from a biological base, but growing indefinitely away from it. Able to overpower or escape biological constraints in most regards, cultures can vary from one another enough so that important portion...
The nature vs. nurture controversy has been one of the oldest and most incessant debates throughout history. The disputation of this debate has generated numerous hypotheses, and explorations by various researchers, however, it has not been clearly determined as to whether a person is biologically determined or whether they are shaped by the environment. Nature’s theory holds that a person’s mental ability is sustained by what he or she is born with genetically. Conversely, the argument that a person’s environment plays a large role in his or her mental aptitude is nurture. Despite the numerous and overwhelming experiments that have been fulfilled by theorists who support the nature theory, I strongly believe that the environment around a person, on the other hand, is ever-changing and offers more opportunities for growth and variation.
historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; Culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action.”
12)De Waal, Frans B.M. (1999). The end of nature versus nurture. Scientific American, 281(6), 94-99. Retrieved from Expanded Academic.
Many of the most prominent critics of Evolutionary Psychology (Buller and Kaplan) are deeply skeptical of Evolutionary Psychology’s two defining tenets. The first tenet says the human mind is “massively modular,” composed of a myriad of independent, special purpose (“domain-specific”) modules, each evolved to help our ancestors survive and reproduce during the hunter-gather period of human evolution. The second tenet focuses on the idea that no subsequent cognitive adaptations to novel environments have occurred (Machery 2007; Rellihan 2012). According to prominent critic David Buller (2005), evolutionary psychologists think that humans are a le...
Tooby first developed the framework for his model when he was an undergraduate at Harvard. He found a steadfast companion in Leda Cosmides, and they married and undertook a 29-year collaboration. After obtaining a PhD in biological anthropology and an A.B. in experimental psychology, he helped form the Special Project on Evolutionary Psychology at Stanford. After an indeterminate amount of time, the intrepid anthropologist and his wife moved and became professors of anthropology at the University of California. Their brainchild, the volume The Adapted Mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, was published in 1992. This text still serve as a staple in any cultural or biological anthropologist’s repertoire today, and the insights, suggestions, explanations, and research presented therein expose the work as a labor of love that further bolstered the public's understanding of his field (Tooby, 199...
“Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind.” The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. Steven Kreis, 3 December 2006. 12 October 2014.
...its members to adhere to it could be established that it does in fact hold a huge influence over the way and nature we use our body. Culture through its system of symbols, that are structurally formed, through habitus, serves to teach us how to behave in order to become a fully fledged member of our given society. These symbols are further reinforced through the intuitions of family and education, the media, fashion and perceived societal norms. This affects the many ways in which we use our body, from the technique of walking through to sleeping, whilst also helping us to classify our social identity of gender and age. It is only through learning, continual practice and adhering to constant self control of one’s self, that we are able to do this successfully making every action we make a taken for granted “gymnastic art, perfected in our own day” (Mauss 1934:456).
For the past five weeks we have studied three different but influential people in our perspective on human nature class. They are Freud, Plato and Tzu. The main discussion between all of them is nature versus nurture. I will discuss the difference between nature and nurture and then I’ll apply to each of these philosophers and how they react to it.
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.
The interrelations between history and human nature requires a detail understanding of what human nature is. In the bible, human nature is that which makes us distinctly human. “Our” nature is distinct from that of animals and other creatures, but whatever human nature may be, I believe human nature is universal which is still developing and can always develop further. For this essay, I’ve chosen to believe that history is the product of human nature. What lead to my belief was that there was no history to begin with, Harman and Gombrich tells a significant event including those that resulted in great change over long periods of time for large numbers of people and this is what made history. Today's culture and how it is set has been greatly
Culture has been a pervasive part of humanity since the beginning of civilization. Wood (2010), professor of communications, defines culture as "the totality of beliefs, values, understandings, practices, and ways of interpreting experience that are shared by a number of people" (p 78). The way I see it, culture shapes an individual and creates their worldview. Each culture emphasizes an important aspect of the humans and displays the complexities of our species. Even though culture includes many elements, I will discuss one of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, Individualism, and explain how it creates a high or low context culture.