| Abstract: | Conclusion Though relatively little direct attention has been given by Marxist anthropologists to a theory of individual behavior and thought in relation to societal processes, the above partial summary indicates the wealth of insight that is available for elaborating such a theory. In addition, there are of course significant developments in the field of psychology, notably the attention to activity as central to individual personality ], the renewed concern with levels of integration theory ], and the burgeoning interest in Vygotsky's writings on language, thought, and culture ]. There are also the continuing attempts to locate Freud's positive contributions in a historical materialist frame ].Where, then, is psychological anthropology? As always, producing a richness of suggestive materials — such as those on varying conceptions of the self — but, as a glance at the pages of Ethos will show, unfortunately not engaged in fundamental theoretical innovation. By way of illustration, let me cite Spindler's The Making of Psychological Anthropology, a collection of articles by major figures, past and present. Spindler's introductory essay is thoughtful; always the teacher, he presents with consideration and modesty the history of the field, the disfavor into which it fell (in large part due to the methodlogical travesties of national character studies), and its stubborn persistence (following from the pervasive interest in the psychological dimension that has always characterized cultural anthropology). He summarizes ongoing problems as perceived from within the field, and as the major difficulty to be overcome pinpoints  cultural overdeterminism and its inadequacy for explaining variations. The solution? Not the necessity of respecting history and focussing on how individuals variously understand and relate (according to their individual histories) to the established structures whereby particular societies produce, allocate, and consume basic goods, and how they variously respond to disjunctions in these structures even as they reproduce them. Instead Spindler writes, ... if we are to escape the double bind of our cultural overdeterminism, we are going to have to go beyond culture and even ecology, to biochemistry, to physiology and neurology, to genetics — to biology in the broadest sense of the term ].In closing, let me say to the reader, do not simply turn away in dismay. One must conclude that it is imperative to continue to build a solid alternative theory of relations among individual behaviors, individual understandings, cultural values, and societal processes, or, in other words, to replace a non-historical and essentially biological paradigm with a dialectical and materialist view of human action.Eleanor Leacock is Professor of Anthropology and Chair at the City College, City University of New York.
|
