Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Introduction

Many theoretical approaches have been developed to explain the process of culture in Anthropology. Some anthropologists explain culture as a social institution while others explore diffusionism as well as functionalism approaches in their research. Rubright (2008) examines a divergent approach of cultural study that encompasses the two separate methods of functionalism. She explores both the structural and psychological functionalism in her approach towards the study of culture in Anthropology. The BA Anthropologist from the University of South Florida argues that one is entitled to explore the two aforementioned schools of thought separately followed by analysis of the concepts in an attempt to fully understand the process of culture in Anthropology (Rubright, 2008). This paper therefore critically examines the work of Jennifer Rubright as explained in her article of “Functionalism in Anthropology”.

The “Functionalism in Anthropology” article is an important document published on 26th of November, 2008 by Jennifer Rubright in Colorado. The Anthropology-based article is directed to a wide range of audience including both the researchers as well as students pursuing Anthropology. It presents a clear and explicit thesis concerning the study of culture in Anthropology. For instance, Jennifer cites a multiple approach of both the structural as well as psychological functionalism as the best way to explain the process of culture in Anthropology (Rubright, 2008). She argues that even though the American and British Anthropologists utilized different approaches towards the study of culture in Anthropology, field study was a unifying factor in both the theories. Rubright posits that a clique of researchers had assumed Spencer’s view that culture is a single social organism whose body parts would be studied separately then analyzed to establish how they are related on a larger scale. She takes a different perspective of the study by exploring the two aforementioned functionalism approaches usually associated with Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright utilizes mainly secondary source of information in her research. For instance, she cites research studies done by McGee & Warms in 2000, Miller in 2002 as well as Angrosino in 2006 in a variety of occasions in the article. She also does a comprehensive literary analysis of other theories presented by other anthropologists. Rubright examines the work of both Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown in their respective psychological and structural functionalism approaches to the study of culture. Such analysis helps her come up with a harmonized research on the study of culture as elaborated in the article. Moreover, Rubright uses personal observations to justify her studies. After analyzing how Radcliffe denounced culture in his research as well as how Malinowski explained the importance of culture in satisfying basic human needs through psychological functional approach, Rubright had some personal observations to make. For instance, she says that Malinowski has failed to appreciate the significance of historical foundations on cultural institutions or social organization despite acknowledging the essentiality of fieldwork to anthropology. Furthermore, the anthropologist uses historical accounts to elaborate her points in the article. For instance, she states that history had a special place in culture as witnessed in the entire reconstruction of social structure as a result of the World War II (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright’s mood is evident as she disagrees with both Radcliffe and Malinowski in many instances in the article. She describes Radcliffe’s philosophy as rigid and filled with a lot of flaws. Rubright argues that an individual is most likely to take a biased view of a society by restricting structures of the society to only tactfully-explainable societal facets. She vehemently disputes the fact that both Radcliffe as well as Malinowski dismisses the historical foundations of social organizations yet they appreciate various aspects of culture in the society. The high tone with which she disagrees with the two Anthropologists demonstrates her mood. The author however agrees with the two aforementioned Anthropologists in some aspects of the research especially the utilization of field work in the study (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright explores various studies throughout the article in an attempt to explain the thesis of the study. She integrates the structural approach of functionalism as explained by Radcliffe with psychological approach explored by Malinowski to come up with a concrete process of culture in Anthropology. The former explores cultures by studying different societal organizations as they are interrelated. Malinowski on the other hand studies individual role of every person in the society and describes the importance of culture towards provision of basic needs to the populace. Studying the two aforementioned functionalism approaches as outlined in the article forms the thesis (Rubright, 2008).

Conclusion

Jennifer’s article of “Functionalism in Anthropology” presents an integrated approach to the study of culture in Anthropology by providing elaborate arguments on the thesis of the article. The Anthropologist points out existing flaws in both the Radcliffe and Malinowski’s approaches to the study of culture and explains the importance of integrating the two schools of thought of functionalism. She outlines sections where similar views are shared with the earlier scientists as well as pointing out sharply on the differences. Her tone is evident as she criticizes the two Anthropologists’ opinions. Furthermore, the Anthropologist acknowledges a variety of secondary sources from where she retrieves her vital information. She explores various aspects of literary analysis as well as personal observations, historical accounts among other facets of writing. Finally, her thesis is well supported throughout the article thereby ensuring a professional article to the targeted audience. However, Rubright does not outline areas that require further research in the future.

Reference:

Rubright, J. (2008). Functionalism in Anthropology: Different Approaches to the Study of

Culture in Anthropology. Colorado: Associated Content, Inc. Retrieved on 8th Nov, 2010 at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1232739/_functionalism_in_anthropology.html?cat=4.

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Introduction

Many theoretical approaches have been developed to explain the process of culture in Anthropology. Some anthropologists explain culture as a social institution while others explore diffusionism as well as functionalism approaches in their research. Rubright (2008) examines a divergent approach of cultural study that encompasses the two separate methods of functionalism. She explores both the structural and psychological functionalism in her approach towards the study of culture in Anthropology. The BA Anthropologist from the University of South Florida argues that one is entitled to explore the two aforementioned schools of thought separately followed by analysis of the concepts in an attempt to fully understand the process of culture in Anthropology (Rubright, 2008). This paper therefore critically examines the work of Jennifer Rubright as explained in her article of “Functionalism in Anthropology”.

The “Functionalism in Anthropology” article is an important document published on 26th of November, 2008 by Jennifer Rubright in Colorado. The Anthropology-based article is directed to a wide range of audience including both the researchers as well as students pursuing Anthropology. It presents a clear and explicit thesis concerning the study of culture in Anthropology. For instance, Jennifer cites a multiple approach of both the structural as well as psychological functionalism as the best way to explain the process of culture in Anthropology (Rubright, 2008). She argues that even though the American and British Anthropologists utilized different approaches towards the study of culture in Anthropology, field study was a unifying factor in both the theories. Rubright posits that a clique of researchers had assumed Spencer’s view that culture is a single social organism whose body parts would be studied separately then analyzed to establish how they are related on a larger scale. She takes a different perspective of the study by exploring the two aforementioned functionalism approaches usually associated with Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright utilizes mainly secondary source of information in her research. For instance, she cites research studies done by McGee & Warms in 2000, Miller in 2002 as well as Angrosino in 2006 in a variety of occasions in the article. She also does a comprehensive literary analysis of other theories presented by other anthropologists. Rubright examines the work of both Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown in their respective psychological and structural functionalism approaches to the study of culture. Such analysis helps her come up with a harmonized research on the study of culture as elaborated in the article. Moreover, Rubright uses personal observations to justify her studies. After analyzing how Radcliffe denounced culture in his research as well as how Malinowski explained the importance of culture in satisfying basic human needs through psychological functional approach, Rubright had some personal observations to make. For instance, she says that Malinowski has failed to appreciate the significance of historical foundations on cultural institutions or social organization despite acknowledging the essentiality of fieldwork to anthropology. Furthermore, the anthropologist uses historical accounts to elaborate her points in the article. For instance, she states that history had a special place in culture as witnessed in the entire reconstruction of social structure as a result of the World War II (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright’s mood is evident as she disagrees with both Radcliffe and Malinowski in many instances in the article. She describes Radcliffe’s philosophy as rigid and filled with a lot of flaws. Rubright argues that an individual is most likely to take a biased view of a society by restricting structures of the society to only tactfully-explainable societal facets. She vehemently disputes the fact that both Radcliffe as well as Malinowski dismisses the historical foundations of social organizations yet they appreciate various aspects of culture in the society. The high tone with which she disagrees with the two Anthropologists demonstrates her mood. The author however agrees with the two aforementioned Anthropologists in some aspects of the research especially the utilization of field work in the study (Rubright, 2008).

Rubright explores various studies throughout the article in an attempt to explain the thesis of the study. She integrates the structural approach of functionalism as explained by Radcliffe with psychological approach explored by Malinowski to come up with a concrete process of culture in Anthropology. The former explores cultures by studying different societal organizations as they are interrelated. Malinowski on the other hand studies individual role of every person in the society and describes the importance of culture towards provision of basic needs to the populace. Studying the two aforementioned functionalism approaches as outlined in the article forms the thesis (Rubright, 2008).

Conclusion

Jennifer’s article of “Functionalism in Anthropology” presents an integrated approach to the study of culture in Anthropology by providing elaborate arguments on the thesis of the article. The Anthropologist points out existing flaws in both the Radcliffe and Malinowski’s approaches to the study of culture and explains the importance of integrating the two schools of thought of functionalism. She outlines sections where similar views are shared with the earlier scientists as well as pointing out sharply on the differences. Her tone is evident as she criticizes the two Anthropologists’ opinions. Furthermore, the Anthropologist acknowledges a variety of secondary sources from where she retrieves her vital information. She explores various aspects of literary analysis as well as personal observations, historical accounts among other facets of writing. Finally, her thesis is well supported throughout the article thereby ensuring a professional article to the targeted audience. However, Rubright does not outline areas that require further research in the future.

Reference:

Rubright, J. (2008). Functionalism in Anthropology: Different Approaches to the Study of

Culture in Anthropology. Colorado: Associated Content, Inc. Retrieved on 8th Nov, 2010 at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1232739/_functionalism_in_anthropology.html?cat=4.