Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4:
*It's inaccurate to say "researchers in both fields [meaning sociology and anthropology] often treat culture as a static superorganic entity that dictates human behavior". The only citation is Gintis, and the only reference I can find in his work is on page 2, asserting that both "treat culture in a static manner that belies its dynamic and evolutionary character", which is not the same thing. Additionally, Gintis does not back this assertion up with any evidence or citations. To conform to NPOV standards, I will change this to "evolutionary economist Herb Gintis has argued that..." --[[Special:Contributions/76.20.46.30|76.20.46.30]] ([[User talk:76.20.46.30|talk]]) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
* (to above coment) This is also a vast oversimplification of both disciplines. The theories that are currently becoming dominant in anthropology are in direct contradiction to this statement. (See [[Structure and agency]] for information on the current debate.) The statement identifying culture as a "superorganic" entity appears to be a direct reference to [[Alfred Radcliffe-Brown]]'s [[structural functionalism]], which hasn't been the dominant theory in anthropology for over 50 years. It seems to me that "Gentis" or whoever originally wrote this criticism of anthropology and sociology doesn't actually have a background in the disciplines and is arguing primarily from a stereotypical understanding of the fields. I'd go as far as to argue that the presence of these critiques in the article without a proper rebuttal constitutes a bias. [[Special:Contributions/85.154.169.140|85.154.169.140]] ([[User talk:85.154.169.140|talk]]) 09:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
* I would like note and thank Pete Richerson of UCDavis for his help in creating this article. [[User:EPM|EPM]] 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||