Conceptual Results of the Practice of Re-reading and Rethinking of Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture

Abstract

Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture has a long history of professional criticism by cultural anthropologists. Still, at the beginning of the 1990s, appeared singular attempts of critical rethinking of the concept of patterns of culture, which were provided with appropriate reconstruction. The initiative belonged to P. Bock and S. Leavitt. Other instances of critical analysis came from attempts to generalize the phenomenon of re-reading the works of Ruth Benedict. In this article those rare initiatives of ‘critical re-reading’ are represented by the paper by B. Babcock and J. Boon. As an analytical unit for reviewing B. Babcock’s academic exposition of conceptual considerations and criticisms, we chose the description of positive perception by Ruth Benedict of the idea from W. Dilthey that we have no grounds for hoping to get any eventual categorical form of rationalization of life from philosophy. As the textual analysis has shown, Ruth Benedict picked this postulation of W. Dilthey’s to block the effect of ‘final’ apologetical theses for support and acceptance of functional descriptions of living archaic cultures of Trobriand Islands and Mainland of Melanesia by B. Malinowski as a template for description of any culture. Regarding the attachment of gestalt psychology implications to existing apologetic arguments for presentation of the mentioned functional descriptions of living archaic cultures as a sample for description of any living culture, the multiplicative meaning of Dilthey’s thesis for Ruth Benedict becomes clear. This multiplicative assignment of Dilthey’s argument shows that in critical reconstruction by P. Bock and S. Leavitt gestalt psychology implications were incautiously presented as a horizon for inclusion of the ideas of configuration, individuality, and culture into the concept of pattern of culture. Concurrently, J. Boon managed to demonstrate that descriptions of antagonism of Indian tribes of Pueblo and Plain cultures contain no depictions of internal testing of one culture by the other. Therefore, a full description of these cultures antagonism as opposition of Apollonian and Dionysian patterns of Indian tribes of Pueblo and Plain culture made up the focal matter of ‘dispositional description’, which is an important methodological achievement of Ruth Benedict.