What is the basis of culture according to Malinovsky. Scientific theory of culture

Abstract on the topic:

"B. Malinovsky and his theory of culture"

Performed:

4th year student

EF, spec. Rionology,

Gr. 4 Ra

Checked:

Stavropol, 2012

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..3

1. Life path and scientific activity of Bronislav Malinovsky…….5

2. The concept of culture by Bronislaw Malinowski……………………………....8

Conclusion..………………………………………………………………………..17

List of used literature……………………………………………... 20

Introduction

The development of social anthropology as a science with its own scientific status is closely connected with the name of the British scientist, a Pole by origin, Bronisław Kaspar Malinowski (1884–1942), who, along with Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955), is considered the founder of modern social science. anthropology. Malinovsky developed his scientific concept in the spirit of functionalism, which at the beginning of the 20th century became the theoretical basis of the main anthropological trend.

The starting point in the formation of Malinovsky's views was the opposition to evolutionary and diffusionist theories of culture, as well as "the atomistic study of cultural traits outside the social context." He considered the main goal of all his work to be the understanding of the mechanism of human culture, the connections between the psychological processes of a person and the social institution, as well as with the biological foundations of universal human traditions and thinking.

The methods that Malinowski applied in his work were based on intensive field research and on detailed comparative analysis of common human traditions in their full social context.

Relevance of the research topic.Malinovsky's work was an important work for sociology and social psychology. Suffice it to say that it is present in the lists of literature on social anthropology.It should also be said that the questions formulated by an anthropologist in relation to culture should be close to sociologists, psychologists, folklorists, linguists, because culture is a single field for representatives of all disciplines who study its individual angles and aspects. From this point of view, the questions why, why, why certain phenomena exist (arise, die off) in culture are among the key questions, the answers to which cannot but interest not only specialists, but also any sensible person.

Actually, any theory, the application of which gives an increment of new knowledge, contains elements of functional analysis.

Malinovsky himself counted at least 27 predecessors who, to one degree or another, used a functional approach in interpreting cultural facts. These include Tylor, Robertson Smith, Sumner, Durkheim, and others. Now Jacobson, Propp, Levi-Strauss can be attributed to the number of adherents of the functional approach. But none of them used the possibilities of functional analysis to the extent that Malinovsky managed to do.

1. Life path and scientific activity of Bronislav Malinovsky

Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski (B. Malinowski, 1884-1942) was an English ethnographer and sociologist of Polish origin, one of the founders of the English functional school in British anthropology. He received his PhD in physics and mathematics in 1908 from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. He studied psychology and historical political economy at the University of Leipzig, then in 1910 he entered the London School of Economics. While studying anthropology and ethnography at the London School of Economics (1910 - 1914), he communicated with J. Fraser, C. Zeligman, E. Westermark and other prominent experts in his chosen field. In 1914-1918. Conducted field ethnographic research in New Guinea and the Trobriand Islands (1914-1918), and then spent a year in the Canary Islands and two years in Australia. Returning to Europe, B. Malinovsky began teaching social anthropology at the University of London and received the title of professor there (1927). Since 1927 he has been a professor of social anthropology at the University of London. In 1938-1942. Worked at Yale University (USA).

Based on his experience in practical research, Malinovsky developed a methodology according to which the anthropologist is obliged to be an observer for some time in the society he studies. This requirement is still the most important condition for socio-anthropological research carried out by the students of his students at the London School of Economics. The approach that B. Malinovsky introduced into anthropological science was aimed at making anthropological (culturological) research as objective and scientific as possible. In the understanding of Malinovsky, this meant overcoming the tradition, in which culture is the subject, first of all, of philosophical reflection within the framework of logic, ethics, aesthetics, linguistics, philosophy of science, and art criticism. Malinovsky behaved like a natural scientist. For several years he lived among the natives, built a hut in the local village and observed the daily life of the islanders from the inside. Together with them, he fished, hunted, having learned the local language, actively communicated, participated in holidays, rituals and ceremonies. He deeply comprehended local customs, learned the beliefs, symbols, attitudes, behavioral reactions of people in order to show the deep inner connection of all these manifestations of the studied culture.

Malinovsky sought to interpret certain problems of a particular culture in terms of fundamental human situations, to study the functioning of individual elements of culture within culture as a whole. He understood culture as a holistic, integrated, coherent system, all parts of which are closely related to each other. Based on this, he demanded that each aspect of culture be considered in the holistic cultural context in which it functions. Considering culture as a universal phenomenon, he argued that cultures are fundamentally comparable and that a comparative analysis of cultures makes it possible to discover its patterns. As the main research method, he proposed a functional approach to the study of sociocultural phenomena. He believed that the functional method, focused on the study of living cultures, avoids arbitrary and unfounded generalizations and is a necessary prerequisite for comparative analysis. Malinowski played a decisive role in the formation of the English school of anthropology.

Main works: Argonauts of the Western Pacific. N.Y., 1961. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays N. Y., 1960. Freedom and Civilization N. Y., 1944. The Dynamics of Culture Change L., 1946. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays Boston., 1948.

B. Malinovsky's article "Functional Analysis" (in the original The Fuctional Theory - "Functional Theory") was published in 1944 in his final theoretical collection of articles by B. Malinowsky. The Fuctional Theory // A Scientific Theory of Culture, and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, 1944. P. 147-176 (Russian translation: Bronislav Malinovsky. Scientific Theory of Culture. OSU Publishing House, Moscow, 2005). In it, the author gives a general description of the method of studying cultures, which he himself used with great success, and which he defines as "functional analysis".

1. The concept of culture by Bronisław Malinowski

Malinovsky tried to formulate the first definition of the concept of culture in the article "Anthropology" in 1926, then on its basis to build a broader theory of culture, setting it out in the article "Culture" in 1931. Later, in 1937, in the work “Culture as a Determinant of Behavior”, the author formulates the theoretical foundations of his direction. However, the final version of Malinowski's concept of culture is contained in his work The Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays (1944).

The model of culture proposed by Malinowski in his last work is presented in the form of a diagram consisting of columns A, B, C and D, which can serve as a good example of the author's favorite way of presenting material.

Column A contains external factors that determine culture. This includes those factors that determine the development and general condition of a given culture, but are not themselves included in its composition. These are the biological needs of the human organism, the geographic environment, the human environment and race. The human environment includes history and all sorts of contacts with the outside world. The external framework determines the moment of time and space of existence of a given cultural reality at a certain historical moment. The researcher should get acquainted with all this before he starts direct field research.

In column B, the researcher indicates the most typical situations on the individual and breeding scale - based on them, he must enter data about the culture under study, which are different in each case. Here Malinovsky uses the biographical method, considering the problems of description within the framework of a person's life cycle. This procedure is not yet a functional analysis, but is only its introductory part.

Column C contains the functional aspects of culture. This includes the economy, education, politics, law, magic and religion, science, art, leisure and recreation. Each functional aspect is considered by Malinovsky in several planes. Each has a three-layer structure: descriptive, functional and ideological moments. All aspects of culture have their own hierarchy: economic base, social aspects, cultural aspects (religion, art, etc.). Aspects of culture are universal in nature, because they reflect the main forms of human activity, forms of human adaptation to environmental conditions. In the holistic (in the broadest sense) understanding of Malinovsky's culture, aspects are combined into large systems of organized human activity called institutions.

In column D, Malinovsky places the main factors of culture. These include: material substratum, social organization and language. Factors are the main forms of culture, because they play a particularly important role in each culture, penetrating into all its aspects, reflected in column C.

Schemes of this kind were Malinowski's favorite form of representing analytic categories of various types. They provided an opportunity for a fairly complete description of the phenomena that the author called culture.

The concept of institution is inextricably linked with the concept of culture introduced into social anthropology by Malinovsky. According to Malinovsky, institutions are the smallest elements of research into which culture can be divided - the actual components of culture, with a certain degree of extension, prevalence and independence, organized systems of human activity. Each culture has its own characteristic composition of the institution, which may differ in its specificity and size. Malinovsky defines an institution in two ways: either as a group of people implementing joint activities, or as an organized system of human activity. A group of people carrying out joint activities lives in a certain environment, has material attributes, certain knowledge necessary when using these attributes and the environment, as well as norms and rules that determine group behavior and sequence of actions. This group has its own system of values ​​and beliefs, which make it possible to organize it and determine the purpose of actions, thus forming the initial base of the institution. The beliefs and values ​​inherent in this group and giving it a certain cultural meaning are different from the function of the institution, from the objective role that it plays in the integral system of culture. Therefore, the initial base of an institution is a subjective justification for the existence of an institution and its role, corresponding to beliefs and cultural values. And the function of the institution is its actual connection with the integral system of culture, the way in which it makes it possible to preserve the structure of this system.

The concept of institution has become in Malinowski's anthropology the basic principle of the integration of observed reality. This is precisely the originality of his analysis of the operation of the cultural system, based on a detailed description of cultural reality observed from the position of the operation of a certain type of institution, which in turn is presented in the context of an integral system of culture. A good example of this kind of analysis is the study of the Kula exchange institution in Malinowski's first major monograph, The Argonauts of the Western Pacific. From the position of this institution, the author tried to describe the entire social life and culture of the inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands. The activities associated with the exchange of the Kula permeate here almost all aspects of the life of the community: economic organization, trade exchange, kinship structures, social organization, customs, rituals, magic and mythology. The meaning of Kula becomes clear only in an integral cultural system.

Similarly, Malinowski presented an analysis of the institution of the economy in his last extensive monograph, Coral Gardens and Their Magic, which is an example of a mature functionalism.

Such an understanding of the institution as an instrument of analysis, as a variant of methodological solutions, made it possible for Malinovsky to reveal some of the hidden relationships and interdependencies between individual areas of human cultural activity. It pointed to the integral nature of culture and society, thereby contributing to their deeper analysis.

Malinowski's concept of culture was a logical consequence of his empirical research. The culture of the Trobriand Islanders for him was an integrated and harmoniously functioning system, at the same time being something similar to the archetype of all human culture. However, Malinovsky did not stop there. He also understood culture as an apparatus for satisfying needs: “Culture is a system of objects, actions and positions in which each part exists as a means to an end.” "It always leads human beings to the satisfaction of needs." According to Malinovsky, any human activity has a target character, it is oriented in a certain direction or performs a certain function. Based on this position, Malinovsky formulates a new dimension around which he builds his theoretical principles. Here the emphasis is on the “use” of the object, on its “role” or “function”. “All elements of culture, if this concept of culture is correct, must act, function, be effective and efficient. Such a dynamic nature of the elements of culture and their relationships leads to the idea that the most important task of ethnography is to study the function of culture. This understanding of culture was really new in the social anthropology of the beginning of the century. The theory of culture, understood as an adaptive mechanism that makes it possible to satisfy human needs, was started by Malinovsky in the article "Culture", but more widely developed in his book "Scientific Theory of Culture", published after Malinovsky's death. But back in 1926, Malinowski wrote: “...anthropological theory seeks to clarify the facts of anthropology at all levels of development through an analysis of their function, their role they play in the integrative system of culture, their way of playing in the system of culture, the way they are preserved in relationships in this system, the way of communication of this system with the surrounding physical world”. Here the system is not just a set of conditions, but also an integral system of culture, i.e. connected and intertwined with each other by all its aspects.

n1.doc

Malinovsky B. Scientific theory of culture 146

IV. What is culture?
It would be nice to start with a bird's-eye view of culture in its various manifestations. It is clear that this is a single whole, formed from tools and consumer goods, constitutional charters of various social groups, human ideas and skills, beliefs and customs. Regardless of whether we take a culture that is extremely simple and primitive, or extremely complex and advanced, we see before us a huge mechanism - partly material, partly human and partly spiritual - thanks to which a person is able to cope with those specific, specific problems, with with which he is confronted. These problems arise from the fact that a person has a body subject to various organic needs, and lives in an environment that is for him both his best friend, giving him raw materials for work, and the most dangerous enemy, fraught with many forces hostile to him.

In this somewhat banal and apparently unpretentious assertion, which we will develop step by step, we have assumed in the first place that in the basis of the theory of culture must be laid by a biological fact. Humans are an animal species. They are subject to natural conditions, which should ensure the survival of individuals, the continuation of the genus and the maintenance of organisms in a working state. In addition, thanks to the equipment with artifacts, as well as the ability to produce them and be able to use them, a person creates a secondary environment. So far, we have said essentially nothing new; similar definitions of culture have often been developed before. However, we will draw a couple of additional conclusions from all this.

First of all, it is clear that the satisfaction of the organic, or basic, needs of man and the genus is the minimum necessary set of conditions that every culture must meet. It must solve the problems generated by man's need for food, his need for reproduction and hygienic needs. These problems are solved by building a new - secondary, or artificial - environment. This environment, which is nothing but culture itself, must be constantly recreated, maintained and controlled.. This creates something that in the broadest sense could be called new standard of living, and it depends on the cultural level of the community, the environment and the performance of the group. The cultural standard of life, meanwhile, means the emergence of new needs and the subordination of human behavior to new imperatives or determinants. Cultural tradition, of course, must be passed on from generation to generation. In every culture there must be certain methods and mechanisms of education. Order and law must be maintained, for the essence of any cultural achievement is cooperation. Every community must have mechanisms to sanction custom, ethics, and law.. The material substrate of culture must be updated and maintained in working condition. Therefore, some form of economic organization is needed, even in the most primitive cultures.

So in First of all, and above all, a person must satisfy all the needs of his body. He must create tools and perform activities that provide him with food, warmth, shelter, clothing, protection from cold, wind and weather. He must protect himself and organize protection from external enemies and dangers: physical dangers, animals and man. All these primary human problems are solved for the individual with the help of artifacts, the organization of group cooperation, as well as the development of knowledge, value and ethics. We will try to show that it is possible to create a theory that would link basic needs and their cultural satisfaction with the origin of new cultural needs, and that these new needs impose on man and society a secondary type of determinism. We will be able to distinguish between instrumental imperatives - arising from such types of activity as economic, normative, educational and political - and integrative imperatives. Here we include knowledge, religion and magic. We can directly connect artistic and recreational activities with certain physiological characteristics of the human body; in addition, we will be able to show the influence of these features on the methods of joint action, magical, industrial and religious ideas, as well as their dependence on them.

If in the course of such an analysis it turns out that we, taking a separate culture as a coherent whole, can establish some common determinants to which it must conform, we will have the opportunity to make a set of predictive judgments that can serve as guiding principles for field work, benchmarks for comparative research, and general parameters for the process of cultural adaptation and change. From this point of view, culture will appear before us not in the form of “ patchwork quilt”, as two authoritative anthropologists have just described it. We will be able to reject the view that “no common parameter of cultural phenomena can be found” and that “the laws of cultural processes are obscure, boring and useless”.

The scientific analysis of culture can point to a different system of realities that is also subject to general laws, and therefore can be used as a guide for field research, a means of recognizing cultural realities, and the foundation of social engineering. The type of analysis just outlined, by which we are trying to determine the relationship between cultural behavior and human need (basic or derivative), can be called functional. For function cannot be defined otherwise than as the satisfaction of a need through some activity in which people cooperate with one another, use artifacts, and consume goods. However, this very definition suggests another principle by which we can integrate any aspect of cultural behavior in a concrete way. The key here is the conceptorganizations. In order to accomplish this or that task, to achieve this or that goal, people must organize themselves. As we will show below, organization presupposes the presence of well-defined scheme, or structure, the basic factors of which are universal and applicable to all organized groups, which, again, in terms of their typical form, are universal for the whole human race.

This unit of human organization I propose to call old, but not always clearly defined and consistently used. the term "institute". This concept involves agreement on some set of traditional values ​​for which people unite with each other. Also, this concept suggests that these people are in a certain relationship with each other and with a specific physical part of their environment - both natural and artificial. Subject to a charter of common purpose or mandate of tradition, observing specific norms of association, and reworking the material apparatus at their disposal, people act in concert and thus satisfy some of their desires while at the same time reciprocating their environment. This provisional definition will need to be made more precise, specific and convincing. At this point, I want to emphasize first of all that until the anthropologist and his fellow humanists agree on what should be considered separate units of a particular cultural reality, there will be no science of civilization. If we reach such an agreement and If we are able to develop universally reliable principles for the functioning of institutions, then we will lay the scientific foundation for our empirical and theoretical investigations.

Neither of these two schemes of analysis certainly suggests that all cultures are the same, nor that the student of culture should be more interested in similarities and similarities than in differences. At the same time, I admit that if we want to understand the differences, then without a clear common comparison criterion am indispensable. Moreover, as will be shown later, most of the distinctions often attributed to some national or tribal spirit - and this is done, it must be said, not only in the theory of National Socialism - form the basis of institutions organized around this or that highly specialized need or value. Phenomena such as headhunting, extravagant funeral rites, and magical practices are best understood when viewed as local refractions of tendencies and ideas inherent in general human nature, but overly exaggerated.

The two types of analysis we have proposed - functional and institutional - will allow us to give a more concrete, precise and comprehensive definition of culture. Culture is a whole made up of partly autonomous and partly coordinated institutions. It integrates based on several principles, including: blood community, ensured by reproduction; spatial proximity associated with cooperation; specialization of activity types; and - not least - exercise of power in a political organization. The completeness and self-sufficiency of each culture is determined by the fact that it satisfies the whole range of basic, instrumental and integrative needs. And therefore, to assume, as was done before, that each culture covers only a small segment of the fan of possibilities inherent in it, means, at least in one sense, to be radically mistaken.

If we were to register all manifestations of all world cultures, then we would certainly find such elements as cannibalism, headhunting, kuvada, potlatch, kula, cremation, mummification and the widest repertoire of elaborate petty eccentricities. From this point of view, of course, no culture encompasses all existing quirks and forms of eccentricity. But such an approach, in my opinion, is fundamentally unscientific. First and foremost, it does not properly define what should be considered real and meaningful elements of culture. Moreover, it does not give us any clue to compare these outwardly exotic "elements" with the customs and cultural institutions of other societies. We will be able to show later that some realities, which at first glance seem very strange, are in their depths akin to completely universal and fundamental elements of human culture; and the very understanding of this will help us to explain exotic customs, that is, to describe them in terms familiar to us.

In addition to all this, of course, it will be necessary to introduce the factor of time, i.e. changes. Here we will try to show that all evolutionary processes, or processes of diffusion, take place first and foremost in the form of institutional change. A new technical device, whether in the form of an invention or by diffusion, fits into an already established system of organized behavior and over time leads to a complete transformation of that institution. Again, within the framework of our functional analysis we will show that no invention, no revolution, no social or intellectual change will take place until new needs are created; Thus, innovations, whether in technology, knowledge or beliefs, are always adapted to the cultural process or institution.

This brief sketch, which is essentially a draft of our subsequent more detailed analysis, shows that scientific anthropology must be a theory of institutions, i.e., a specific analysis of the typical units of the organization. As a theory of basic needs and the origin of instrumental and integrative imperatives, scientific anthropology provides us with a functional analysis, allowing to determine the form and meaning of a traditional idea or invention. It is easy to see that such a scientific approach in no way rejects or negates the value of evolutionary or historical research. He simply sums up the scientific basis for them.
VII. Functional analysis of culture
If we wish to be worthy of our definition of science, then, of course, we must answer a number of questions that in the preceding analysis were posed rather than solved. In the concept of an institution, and also in the assertion that each individual culture must be analytically divided into institutions, and that all cultures have some set of institutional types as their basic common dimension, there are already several generalizations or scientific laws of process and product.

It remains to be clear relationship between form and function th. We have already emphasized that any scientific theory must start from observation and constantly return to it. It must be inductive and subject to experimental verification. In other words, it must relate to human experience, which is definable, has a public character (i.e., is available for observation by everyone and everyone individually), and is also characterized by repetition and, therefore, is fraught with inductive, i.e., predictive generalizations. All this means that, ultimately, every judgment of scientific anthropology must be related to phenomena that can be defined by their form, in the fullest objective sense of the word.

At the same time, we pointed out that culture, being the creation of human hands and being a mediator for a person in achieving his goals - an intermediary that allows him to live and establish a certain level of security, comfort and well-being, an intermediary that gives him power and allows him to create benefits And values ​​that go beyond his animal, organic gifts - because of all this, must be understood as a means to an end, that is, instrumentally, or functionally. And if we are right in both statements, then we need to more clearly define what is form, function and what is their relationship.

Directly in the course of our analysis, we saw that a person modifies the physical environment in which he lives. We stated the assertion that no organized system of activity is possible without a physical basis and equipment with artifacts. It could be shown that none of the differentiated phases of human activity is bypassed without the use of material objects, artifacts and consumer goods - in short, without involving elements of material culture. At the same time, there is no such human activity, whether collective or individual, that could be considered purely physiological, that is, “natural” activity, devoid of the element of learning. Even such activities as breathing, endocrine glands, digestion and circulation take place in a culturally determined artificial environment. The physiological processes occurring in the human body are influenced by ventilation of the lungs, regularity and diet, safe or dangerous external conditions, pleasures and anxieties, fears and hopes. In turn, processes such as respiration, excretion, digestion and internal secretion have a more or less direct effect on culture and lead to the emergence of cultural systems that appeal to the human soul, witchcraft and metaphysical systems. Between the organism and the secondary environment in which it exists, i.e. culture, there is a constant interaction. In short, people live according to those norms, customs, traditions and rules that develop as a result of the interaction between organic processes and the processes of human manipulation of the environment and its transformation. Therefore, here we are confronted with another important an integral element of cultural reality; whether we call it a norm or a custom, a habit or a temper, a folk custom or something else, it does not matter much.. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the term "custom" to refer to all traditionally regulated and standardized forms of bodily behavior. How to define this concept in order to clarify its form, make it accessible to scientific study and connect this form with function?

Meanwhile, culture also includes a number of such elements that remain outwardly intangible and inaccessible to direct observation; their form and function are far from obvious. We talk pretty glibly about ideas and values, interests and beliefs; we discuss the motifs of folk tales, and in the analysis of magic and religion - dogmatic ideas. In what sense can we talk about form when we make the subject of study faith in God, the concept mana, predisposition to animism, pre-animism or totemism? Some sociologists resort to the hypothesis of a collective censor, they hypostasize the Society as “ an objective moral being that imposes its will on its members". At the same time, it is obvious that nothing can be objective if it is not available for observation. Most scientists who analyze magic and religion, primitive knowledge and mythology, are content to describe them in terms of introspective individual psychology. Here, again, we are not given the opportunity to make a final choice between one theory or another, between certain assumptions and conclusions and others that are directly opposite, by resorting to observation, since we cannot observe mental processes either in a native or in anyone else. neither was. Therefore, we are faced with the task of defining an objective approach to the study of what in a broad sense could be called the spiritual component of culture, as well as indicating the function of an idea, a belief, a value, and a moral principle.

Now, it is probably clear that the problem we are facing here, and which we are trying to work through with a certain measure of depth or even pedantry, is the fundamental problem of every science: it is the problem of defining its subject. The fact that this problem is still waiting for its solution and that the science of culture still lacks real criteria for determining the phenomena being studied - in other words, criteria for what exactly and how should be observed, what exactly and how should be compared, evolution and the diffusion of what needs to be tracked is unlikely to raise objections from those who are familiar with the discussions taking place in history, sociology or anthropology. In the latter there is one school whose representatives build most of their research around the concept of heliolithic culture. Researchers who reject such theories categorically deny that the heliolithic culture is such a reality that can be found in all corners of the globe. They dispute the very method of identifying the object under study, which takes as its basis megalithic monuments, dual organization, the symbol of the mammoth body, the interpretation of the sexual symbolism of the cowrie shell; in essence, they challenge each of the postulated realities.

To take a closer example, there is a debate within the functional school about whether a functional explanation should be built around the fact of "social cohesion," group solidarity, group integration, and phenomena such as euphoria and dysphoria. One group of functionalists considers these phenomena indefinable, the other - real. While most anthropologists agree that at least the family is a real distinct element of cultural reality that can be found and traced throughout human history and therefore constitutes a cultural universal, there are nonetheless quite a few anthropologists who challenge the definability of this cultural configuration or institution. Most anthropologists are sure that totemism exists. However, A. A. Goldenweiser, in a brilliant essay published in 1910 - and, in my opinion, this essay is an important milestone in the development of the anthropological method - called the existence of totemism into question. In other words, he challenged those authors who write about this phenomenon and trace its origin, development and diffusion in order to prove the validity of the interpretation of totemism as a legitimate element of observation and theoretical discourse.

Thus, the establishment of criteria for defining the phenomena under study in field research, theory, as well as speculative thinking, hypothesis building and applied anthropology will probably be the most important contribution to making the Study of Man a science. Let me approach this question from the elementary problem facing the field researcher. Settling for the first time among those people whose culture he wants to understand, describe and present to the public, he directly faces the question: what does it mean to define a cultural fact? For to define is the same as to understand. We understand another person's behavior when we can interpret his motives, his motives, his habits., i.e., his holistic reaction to the conditions in which he finds himself. Whether we use introspective psychology and say that understanding means the identification of mental processes, or, following the example of the behaviorists, we assert that the response of the individual to the integral stimulus of the situation is determined by the same principles that are known to us from our own experience, from this to essentially nothing changes. Ultimately (and this is the methodological basis of field research), I would insist on a behavioral approach, because it allows us to describe facts that are amenable to direct observation. At the same time, it remains true that in the current intuitive life we ​​react and respond to the behavior of others through the mechanism of introspection.

And here immediately appears a very simple, but often forgotten principle. The most significant and directly understandable for us are those actions, material mechanisms and means of communication that are associated with human organic needs, emotions and practical ways of satisfying needs. When people eat or rest, when they are clearly attractive to each other and enthusiastically indulge in mutual courtship, when they warm themselves by the fire, sleep, putting something under themselves, bring food and water to prepare a meal, there is nothing mysterious for us in their behavior. , and it will not be difficult for us to give a clear explanation of all this or to explain to members of other cultures what is really happening. The unfortunate result of this fundamental fact is that anthropologists have followed in the footsteps of their untrained predecessors and neglected these elementary aspects of human existence because they seemed obvious, too human, uninteresting, and unproblematic. Nevertheless, it is clear that the selection of the studied material on the basis of its exoticism, sensationalism and bizarre deviation from universal human behavior is not scientific selection at all, for the simplest actions that satisfy elementary human needs occupy a very important place in organized behavior.

It is not difficult to show that the historian also invariably uses as the basis for his reconstructions the physiological argument that all people live not by bread alone, but by bread first of all, that any army wins with its stomach (and, apparently, not only the army, but almost any other large organization). In short, to use a well-known expression, history can be summarized as follows: "They lived, they loved, they died." Primum vivere, deinde philosophari; the principle that the people can be kept in check if they are wisely provided with bread and circuses; in other words, the understanding that there is a system of needs, some of which are fundamental, and others, perhaps artificially created, but nevertheless urgently demand satisfaction - such expressions and principles form the core of the historian's wisdom, even if they remain at the level of unspoken intuition. In my opinion, it is obvious that any theory of culture must start from the organic needs of man, and if it manages to connect with them more complex, indirect, but perhaps no less urgent needs of a spiritual, economic, or social type, then it will give us such a system of general laws that we need to build a solid scientific theory.

When does a field anthropologist, theorist, sociologist, and historian feel the need to explain something through hypotheses, pretentious reconstructions, or psychological assumptions? Obviously, then when human behavior begins to seem strange, out of touch with our own needs and habits; in short, when people stop behaving as all other people would behave: observing the customs of the kuvada, hunting for heads, scalping, worshiping a totem, ancestral spirits or an outlandish deity. It is noteworthy that many of these customs belong to the realm of magic and religion and owe their existence (or seem to owe it) to the deficiencies of primitive knowledge or thinking. The less organic the need to which human behavior responds, the more likely it is to give rise to phenomena that provide rich food for all sorts of anthropological speculations. However, this is only partly true. Even when it comes to nutrition, sex life, growth and decrepitude of the human body, there are many problematic, exotic and strange types of behavior. Cannibalism and food taboos; customs of marriage and kinship; hypertrophied sexual jealousy and its almost complete absence; classification terms of kinship and their inconsistency with physiological kinship; finally, the extraordinary confusion, amazing diversity and contradictory nature of funeral customs and eschatological ideas - all this constitutes a vast layer of culturally determined behavior that seems strange and incomprehensible to us at first glance. Here we are undoubtedly dealing with phenomena that are inevitably accompanied by a very strong emotional reaction. Everything related to human nutrition, sexual life, and the life cycle, which includes birth, growth, manhood and death, is inevitably associated for the body and nervous system of the participant himself and his fellows with certain physiological irritations. For us, again, this means that if we want to find an approach to complex and intricate cultural behavior, then we must relate it to the organic processes of the human body and those related aspects of behavior that we call desires and drives, emotions and physiological stimuli. and which, for one reason or another, must be regulated and coordinated by the mechanism of culture.

There is one point about superficial comprehensibility that we have omitted from this part of our discussion. There is a whole area of ​​human behavior that the field researcher must specifically study and convey to the reader, namely specific symbolism of a particular culture, and above all language. Meanwhile, this point is directly related to the problem that we have already posed, namely, the problem of determining the symbolic function of an object, a gesture, an articulated sound, which must be correlated with a general theory of needs and their cultural satisfaction.
VIII. What is human nature? (Biological foundations of culture)
We must build a theory of culture on the basis of the fact that all human beings belong to the animal species. Man as an organism must exist in conditions that not only guarantee its survival, but also provide it with a healthy, normal metabolism. No culture can exist without a constant and normal replenishment of group members.. Otherwise, the culture will disappear along with the gradual extinction of the group. Thus all human groups and all individual organisms belonging to a group need the minimum necessary conditions for life. The term "human nature" we can define on the basis of the fact that all people, wherever they live and whatever type of civilization they practice, must eat, breathe, sleep, procreate and remove waste products from the body.

Therefore, by human nature we mean biological determinism. m, requiring from any civilization and from all individuals belonging to it, the implementation of such bodily functions as breathing, sleep, rest, nutrition, excretion and reproduction. We can define the concept of basic needs as those environmental conditions and biological conditions that are necessary for the survival of the individual and the group. In fact, their survival requires maintaining the minimum necessary level of health and vitality necessary to solve cultural problems, as well as maintaining the minimum necessary group size to prevent its gradual extinction.

We have already pointed out that the concept of need is only the first step towards understanding organized human behavior. It has already been suggested several times here that even the most elementary need, even the biological function most independent of the influences of the environment, does not remain completely untouched by the influence of culture. Nevertheless, there are a number of biologically determined - that is, determined by the physical parameters of the environment and human anatomy - activities that invariably turn out to be incorporated into any kind of civilization.

Let me show this clearly. The attached table lists the vital sequences. Each of them was analytically divided into three phases. First of all, there is an impulse, determined primarily by the physiological state of the organism. Here, for example, we find such a state of the body that occurs in the event of a temporary suspension of breathing. We all know this feeling from personal experience. The physiologist can define it in terms of biochemical processes occurring in tissues, i.e. through the function of ventilation of the lungs, the structure of the lungs, as well as the processes of oxidation and the formation of carbon monoxide. The impulse associated with the processes of digestion (in other words, appetite) can also be described in terms of human psychology, that is, with the help of introspection and personal experience. However, from an objective point of view, here, for a scientific explanation, one should turn to a physiologist, and for more specific explanations, to a nutritionist and a specialist in digestive processes. In a textbook on the physiology of sex, instinctive sexual hunger can be defined by referring to human anatomy and the physiology of reproduction. The same, obviously, can be said about fatigue (which is an impulse to a temporary cessation of muscle and nervous activity), about pressure in the bladder and in the colon, and also, perhaps, about drowsiness, an impulse to motor activity to exercise the muscles and nerves and the impulse to avoid immediate organic dangers, such as, for example, a collision, falling off a cliff, or hovering over an abyss. Pain avoidance seems to be a general impulse akin to danger avoidance.

Permanent vital sequences incorporated into all cultures

artifact culture malinovsky

B. Malinovsky (1884-1942) is one of the founders of the functional theory in cultural studies of the twentieth century. The main idea in Malinowski's study of culture was the "atomistic study of cultural traits outside the social context". He considered the goal of his scientific work to be understanding the mechanism of human culture, which included the relationship between the psychological processes of a person and social institutions, as well as with the biological foundations of universal human traditions and thinking. The main methods used by Malinovsky in studying the problems of culture in society were field and comparative. In compiling the research model, the anthropologist relied on the principle that the scientific hypotheses that the scientist must verify in practice must be generated by the "field" itself. This theory, in his opinion, leads not only to a specific consideration of the facts, but, first of all, directs the researcher to new types of observation. Therefore, it is a theory that both begins in the field and leads back to it.

The results of this work allowed him to formulate a functional method based on the fact that the main emphasis was not on determining the relationship between individual cultures, but on discovering the interconnections and interdependencies between the institutions of one given culture. His functionalism theoretically relies on two main concepts: culture and function.

He worked on the formulation of the category of culture for a long time. So, for example, Malinovsky tried to formulate his first definition in the article "Anthropology" (1926), and then on its basis he modeled a broader theory of culture in the article "Culture" (1931). Only in "Culture as a determinant of behavior" (1937) does he set out the theoretical basis of his direction. The latest theoretical concept of culture is contained in his work "The Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays" (1944) Malinovsky B. Scientific Theory of Culture. - M: OGI, 2005. We will pay special attention to this work. Namely, here the culture model is presented in the form of a diagram consisting of columns A, B, C and D.

Column A is devoted to external factors that determine culture. This includes those factors that determine the development and general condition of a given culture, but are not themselves part of its composition. These are the biological needs of the human organism, the geographic environment, the human environment and race. The human environment includes history and all sorts of contacts with the outside world. The external framework determines the moment of time and space of existence of a given cultural reality at a certain historical moment. The researcher should get acquainted with all this before he starts direct field research.

In column B, the researcher indicates the most typical situations on the individual and breeding scale - based on them, he must enter data about the culture under study, which are different in each case. Here Malinovsky uses the biographical method, considering the problems of description within the framework of a person's life cycle. This procedure is not yet a functional analysis, but is only its introductory part.

Column C contains the functional aspects of culture: economy, education, political order, law, magic and religion, science, art, leisure and recreation. Each functional aspect is considered by Malinovsky in several planes. Each has a three-layer structure: descriptive, functional and ideological moments. All aspects of culture have their own hierarchy: economic base, social aspects, cultural aspects (religion, art, etc.). Aspects of culture are universal in nature, because they reflect the main forms of human activity, forms of human adaptation to environmental conditions. In the holistic understanding of Malinovsky's culture, aspects are combined into large systems of organized human activity, called institutions.

Column D contains the main cultural factors. These include: material substratum, social organization and language. Factors are the main forms of culture, because they play a particularly important role in each culture, penetrating into all its aspects, reflected in column C. Schemes of this kind were for Malinovsky, as already noted, a favorite form of representing analytical categories of various types. They provided an opportunity for a fairly complete description of the phenomena that the author called culture Ibid. pp.127-128..

With the concept of culture, in Malinovsky, the concept of institution is connected. According to him, institutions are the smallest elements of research into which culture can be divided - the actual constituent parts of culture, having a certain degree of extension, prevalence and independence, organized by systems of human activity Malinowski B. Naukowa teoria kultury // Szkice z teorii kultury. Warsaw. 1958.S. 40-51.. Each culture has its own composition of the institution, which differs in its specificity and size.

In his research, he formulates the institution in different ways: as a group of people implementing a joint activity; something like an organized system of human activity. A group of people carrying out joint activities lives in a certain environment, has material attributes, certain knowledge necessary when using these attributes and the environment, as well as norms and rules that determine group behavior and sequence of actions. This group has its own system of values ​​and beliefs, which make it possible to organize it and determine the purpose of actions, thus forming the initial base of the institution. The beliefs and values ​​inherent in this group and giving it a certain cultural meaning are different from the function of the institution, from the objective role that it plays in the integral system of culture. Therefore, the initial base of an institution is a subjective justification for the existence of an institution and its role, corresponding to beliefs and cultural values. And the function of the institution is its actual connection with the integral system of culture, the way in which it makes it possible to preserve the structure of this system.

In social anthropology, the above theory of institutions has become the main principle of the integration of observed reality. This is precisely the essence of his analysis of the operation of a cultural system, based on a detailed description of cultural reality observed from the position of the operation of a certain type of institution, which in turn is presented in the context of an integral system of culture. Thus, already in his monograph Argonauts of the Western Pacific Ocean, relying on the Kula exchange institutions, Malinovsky describes the entire social life and culture of the inhabitants of the islands.

Exchange activities affect all aspects of community life. Namely economic organization, commercial exchange, kinship structures, social organization, customs, rituals, magic and mythology. The use of the Kula as the core basis of the work becomes understandable only in an integral cultural system. In the same style, Malinovsky analyzed the institution of the economy in the monograph Coral Gardens and Their Magic.

The use of the institution as a research tool allowed him to reveal a number of implicit relationships and interdependencies between individual areas of human culture, which indicated the integral nature of culture and society. Malinowski's concept of culture was a logical consequence of his empirical research. The culture of the Trobriand Islanders for him was a functioning system, similar to the archetype of all human culture. The next step in understanding culture for Malinovsky was understanding it as an apparatus for satisfying needs: “Culture is a system of objects, actions and positions in which each part exists as a means to an end. It always leads human beings to meet their needs” Ibid.S.155.. According to Malinovsky, any human activity has a target character and performs a specific function. Proceeding from this, he sets a new dimension around which he builds his new model of culture. Here he relies on such categories as: the "use" of an object, its "role" or "function". “All elements of culture, if this concept of culture is correct, must act, function, be effective and efficient. Such<…>the dynamic nature of the elements of culture and their relationships leads to the idea that the most important task of ethnography is to study the function of culture” Malinowski B. Naukowa teoria kultury // Szkice z teorii kultury. Warsaw. 1958. P.11. Such an understanding of culture was really new in the social anthropology of the early twentieth century.

The theory of culture, understood as an adaptive mechanism that makes it possible to satisfy human needs, was also set forth in the Scientific Theory of Culture, published after Malinovsky's death. But even earlier, he expressed the idea that: “... anthropological theory seeks to clarify the facts of anthropology at all levels of development through an analysis of their function, their role they play in the integrative system of culture, their way of playing in the system of culture, the way of preserving in interrelations in this system, the way of communication of this system with the surrounding physical world” Cit. Quoted from: Waligorski A. Antropologiczna koncepcja czlowieka. Warsaw. 1973. P.361. Malinovsky B. Scientific theory of culture. - M: OGI, 2005. S.24-26..

Here the system is not just a set of conditions, but also an integral system of culture, i.e. connected and intertwined with each other by all its aspects. So, in this theory, culture becomes more related to the person, and not activity, as in the previous theory. Culture acquires a different dimension and unites with the dynamic sphere of phenomena. This dynamic is based on the interconnection of separate parts of culture and on the fact that it is connected with a person in the sense that "our understanding of a need implies a direct correlation of a need and a culture's response to this need" Ibid. Malinovsky B. Scientific theory of culture. P.83. The fundamental principle for it is the objectively given and evaluatively cognizable nature of the laws of culture. The forms of human behavior are not a random set of human actions or values, but are ordered into a certain system of patterns and rules.

Culture can also be seen from yet another perspective - as a set or sum of human material, social and spiritual works. It is understood as an attribute of human behavior and is inseparable from a person who is part of society. Thus, culture “includes material works (artifacts) inherited by man, goods, technological processes, ideas, skills and values. Social organization is also included here, for it can only be understood as part of culture. Op. pp.114-115..

In a broader definition of culture, Malinovsky characterizes it as "a coherent, multifaceted reality sui generis". Based on the latter definition, he tried to create a broad anthropological concept of culture, including a number of human sciences, such as physical anthropology, archeology, ethnology, psychology, linguistics, economics, law, etc. In his opinion, all these areas of knowledge should develop common scientific laws that, in the end, must be identical for all heterogeneous researches of humanism. It becomes clear that such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as culture cannot be defined by a single definition.

“Man differs from animals in that he is obliged to rely on the created environment, on tools, shelter and on created vehicles. In order to create and use this set of products and benefits, a person must have knowledge and technology. He is also dependent on the help of his human companions. This means that he must live in organized, orderly societies, and among all animals he alone has the right to claim the triple title: Homo faber, Zoon politicon, Homo sapiens» Waligorski A. Antropologiczna koncepcja czlowieka. Warsaw. 1973. P.364 .. In addition, culture is a “social heritage” for Malinovsky: “... in order to understand what culture is, it is necessary to take a closer look at the process of its creation, understanding the continuity of generations and the way it creates in each new generation, its inherent ordered mechanism” Ibid..

In the work "The Scientific Theory of Culture" he outlined the biological foundations of culture, his theory of needs. The starting point in this case was the fact of man's involvement in the natural world. Due to the fact that the physiological structure of the organism is similar in all people, it is possible to draw out the common foundations of such different human cultures. This basis of heterogeneous human activity can be found in different geographical environments and at different stages of cultural development. According to Malinovsky, the establishment of such a basis, which would make it possible to compare, would be at the same time the initial condition for scientific analysis. He defined such a position only as a kind of heuristic procedure, because, in fact, the biological framework could serve for the ethnographer only as a comparative ground for establishing the entire wealth of forms of human behavior.

Man as a biological organism has a number of needs that must be satisfied. Despite the fact that these needs are of a biological nature, they cannot be satisfied in a purely physiological way, but, as Malinovsky argued, through the apparatus of culture. Thus, the ways of satisfying needs become different in different cultures and at different stages of cultural development. “... I understand the need as a system of conditions in the human body, in the way of culture, in relation to the natural environment, which is finite and sufficient to support the life of the group and the organism” Malinowski B. Naukowa teoria kultury // Szkice z teorii kultury. Warsaw. 1958. P.90. Each need is met by a certain reaction of culture - a certain functional aspect. He uses "the concept of instrumental life sequences" to characterize how the transition from biological needs to cultural behavior occurs. In them, he distinguishes two types of motives: 1) instrumental implementation - a culturally determined situation; 2) the act of consumption. The cultural response to needs is contained in institutions, because any activity belongs to a certain institution and is always associated with a need. Then culture is considered as a system consisting of subsystems: a subsystem of active parts and a subsystem of social organization. Malinovsky defines the functions of such a system in relation to human needs. As basic needs are met in human society, new needs are born - derivatives. This comes from the fact that man is not only a biological organism, but a social being. Malinovsky considers such derivative needs to be the need for organization, order and harmony. The process of their satisfaction is due to the presence of linguistic and cultural symbols in human society.

In addition to these two types of needs, generated in the first case by the biological nature of a person, and in the second - by the social situation in which a person's life takes place, Malinovsky singles out a third type, which is very far from the biological nature of a person. These needs, difficult enough to define, are purely human in nature and are of an intellectual, spiritual, and creative nature. Malinowski calls them integrative needs and classifies science, religion, magic, ethics and morality, art among them.

Human needs fit into a certain order, which has its own hierarchy. First, there are the needs associated with the material existence of a person, then follow the social needs associated with the fact that a person lives in groups, and finally - the needs that serve his spiritual activity. Meanwhile, the above theory after its publication a lot of the most controversial assessments.

“In other words, we can argue that the origin of culture can be defined as the merging into a single whole of several lines of development, among which is the ability to recognize objects suitable as tools, an understanding of their technical effectiveness and their meaning, i.e. their place in a purposeful chain of actions, the formation of social bonds and the emergence of the sphere of the symbolic. Malinovsky B. Scientific theory of culture. - M: OGI, 2005.S.115.

"Culture as a way of life<…>cannot be imposed, controlled or enforced by legislation. Culture must be given the best opportunities for development and for fruitful interaction with other cultures, but it must maintain its own balance and develop independently in conditions of complete cultural autonomy. P.176..

So, the developed theory of culture by B. Malinovsky made a real revolution in the humanities and social sciences. The fact is that he was one of the first to show that culture is a system organized in accordance with the fundamental needs of man. That is why his concept remains one of the most authoritative in cultural studies today.

Bronislav Malinovsky

CULTURES

UDC 39 BBK71.0

Second edition, revised Editorial board:

A. S. Arkhipova (series editor) D. S. Itskovich, A. P. Minaeva,

S. Yu. Neklyudov (Chairman of the Editorial Board), E. S. Novik

Scientific editor A. R. Zaretsky

Series artist N. Kozlov Cover design M. Avtsin

Malinovsky B.

М19 Scientific theory of culture / Bronislav Malinovsky; Per. from English. I. V. Utekhina; comp. and intro. Art. A K Baiburin. 2nd ed., rev. - M.: OGI, 2005. - 184 p. - (Nation and Culture: Scientific Heritage: Anthropology).

ISBN 5-94282-308-1

The book contains the main theoretical works of the outstanding British anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski. The reader will find here a brief and precise exposition of the ideas of the functional school that arose around Malinowski at the beginning of the 20th century. and remains highly respected to this day. The author focuses on the problem of the correct interpretation of culture, which is fundamentally important not only for an anthropologist, but also for any humanist.

A.K. BAYBURIN

Bronislaw Malinowski and his "Scientific Theory of Culture"

This is ONE of the MOST IMPORTANT books by the eminent British anthropologist and creator of modern functionalism Bronisław Malinowski. There are several reasons for publishing this book. In our country, the works of B. Malinovsky are known only to a narrow circle of specialists. Meanwhile, it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is precisely with the works of Malinovsky that a new countdown begins not only in anthropology, but also in all those areas of scientific knowledge for which the concept of culture is significant. He managed to do, perhaps, the most difficult thing in science - to change the view of the nature of culture, to see in it not just a set of its constituent elements, but a system corresponding to the fundamental needs of man.

The new point of view gave rise to a new direction, for which the main questions were “why, why, why does it exist?” or "what is the function?" some cultural phenomenon. The functionalism of B. Malinovsky, thanks to its clear and understandable position, has become, perhaps, the most fruitful trend in anthropology of the 20th century. This synthesis of simplicity, clarity and efficiency is sometimes so lacking in the conceptions of culture that are being developed today.

Among anthropologists, there are two images of Malinovsky - a brilliant ethnographer, whose observations on life and everyday life, for example, the Trobriand people, are still considered a model of field research, and a theorist, whose ideas became the object of criticism during his lifetime. These two images almost do not intersect, although the example of Malinovsky is that rare case when the theory is built on the facts that he observed and described in his field investigations. In itself, such an attitude towards field and theoretical research is quite traditional: we believe that facts do not age, their value only increases with time,

Bronisław Macinowskip and his "Scientific Theory of Culture"

while any theoretical constructions are doomed to a short life. However, for Malinovsky, the ratio of "practical" and "theoretical" was different. In his works, he tried to show that facts are meaningless without a theoretical context, and a theory makes sense only when it is able to explain the essential need for these facts for the functioning of culture. Such a rare balance of theory and practice in the works of B. Malinovsky is apparently rooted in some features of his scientific path.

B. Malinovsky became an anthropologist by accident. He was born in Krakow in 1884, received a physical and mathematical education at the University of Krakow and even defended his thesis in this specialty in 1908. This circumstance explains the tangible presence in the works of Malinovsky of the desire for the accuracy of formulations and the consistency of theoretical constructions. After defending his dissertation, he became seriously ill, and then he caught the eye of Frazer's Golden Bough. Reading this three-volume compendium turned B. Malinovsky's whole life upside down. Respect and reverence for Frazer remained with him forever, as evidenced by one of the sections of this book.

Malinovsky leaves for England and enters the graduate school of the London School of Economics, where not only economics, but also sociology and anthropology were taught. Here he met the classics of British anthropology: Fraser, Saliman, Westermark, Rivers, Marett, and others. Under their direct influence, B. Malinovsky was formed as an anthropologist. Saliman instilled in him a taste for field research, and Westermark for theoretical constructs.

Very soon, Malinovsky felt the need for a new approach to interpreting the facts of culture. He was satisfied neither with Frazer's evolutionist approach with the allocation of indispensable stages of evolution, nor even with Gröbner's diffusionism, when individual facts are taken out of context and their distribution is "established" by external signs. Malinovsky did not want to isolate himself in the anthropological world. He believed that the questions formulated by an anthropologist in relation to culture should be close to sociologists, psychologists, folklorists, linguists, because culture is a single field for representatives of all disciplines who study its individual angles and aspects. From this point of view, the questions why, why, why certain phenomena exist (arise, die off) in culture are among the key questions, the answers to which cannot but interest not only specialists, but also any sensible person.

Actually, any theory, the application of which gives rise to new knowledge, contains elements of functional analysis.

A. K. Baiburin

Malinovsky himself counted at least 27 predecessors who, to one degree or another, used a functional approach in interpreting cultural facts. These include Tylor, Robertson Smith, Sumner, Durkheim, and others. Now Jacobson, Propp, Levi-Strauss can be attributed to the number of adherents of the functional approach. But none of them used the possibilities of functional analysis to the extent that Malinovsky managed to do.

Of course, not everything in his theory can now be unconditionally accepted. Confused by the straightforwardness of the concept of needs, the simplification of the relationship between biological and cultural. Other disadvantages can also be found. Many reproach him for anti-historicism, apparently understanding history as the sequence of events that is constantly “improved” by historians themselves. Such accusations would then be transferred to structuralism, of which Malinowski is the immediate forerunner. In the end, this is not what determines the fate of a particular scientific theory. The important thing is which ideas remain and become generally accepted, which are included in the foundation on the basis of which the further progressive movement of scientific thought takes place.

Needless to say, the concept of culture as a well-balanced system of its individual parts or the concept of a social institution have become deeply rooted concepts. Malinovsky owns ideas that have the status of epochal not only for anthropologists. I will give just one example. The well-known Russian folklorist E. M. Meletinsky, analyzing the development of the science of myth, writes about Malinovsky: “It should be recognized that it was he, and not Frazer, who was a true innovator in the question of the relationship between myth and ritual and, more broadly, in the question of the role and place myths in culture ... Malinovsky shows that myth in archaic societies, that is, where it has not yet become a "relic", has no theoretical meaning and is not a means of scientific or pre-scientific knowledge of the world around man, but performs purely practical functions, maintaining the traditions and continuity of tribal culture by referring to the supernatural reality of prehistoric events ... It was Malinovsky who reasonably linked myth with magic and ritual and clearly raised the question of the socio-psychological function of myth in historical societies ”(Poetics of myth. M., 1976. C 37-38).

B. Malinovsky's theory can be called an appeal to common sense. There is no need to retell it. The interested reader can now get to know her and make her own judgment. I would like to mention one more, third image of B. Malinovsky.

Bronislav Msishnovsky and his "Nuclear Theory of Culture"

This image belongs to his students. The image of the teacher. According to their recollections, he loved to teach and considered it no less important than traveling on expeditions and writing books and articles. More precisely, these three types of activity were inseparable for him, and if we nevertheless consider them separately, then from his point of view, scientific work is ultimately necessary in order to obtain new knowledge and pass it on to students. It is significant that in the published book the section "Functional theory" begins with the fact that the very emergence of this theory is explained by the need to "educate the younger generation" (p. 125).

Malinovsky was one of those professors who love not lectures, but seminars, not their own monologue, but dialogue, discussion. His constant question went something like this: "What is the real problem?" He saw the answer to this question not in high theory, but in human behavior. It is this reliance on reality that makes his concept necessary for new and new generations of researchers.

Foreword

THIS KNNGA is both a generalization and a new formulation of Professor Bronisław Malinowski's functional theory of culture. Some of the rudimentary ideas of this theory can be found on the first page of his very first book, published more than thirty years ago; other ideas are presented here for the first time, at least in their developed form. Anyway, this book introduces us to the mature period of the work of one of the most brilliant and authoritative anthropologists in the history of this discipline. The views of the scientist formulated in this book are the result of a heated debate. They were lucky, as far as ideas can be lucky: experts holding opposing points of view subjected them to biased analysis. And the fact that in general, apart from minor details corrected later, they passed this test, proves their viability.

Bronislaw Malinowski was born in Krakow (Poland) on April 7, 1884. At first, he studied mathematics and physics at the university, and traces of this school are clearly visible in how confidently he mastered the basics of scientific methodology. At the same time, he remained free from dogmatism, which is usually associated with the study of the exact sciences. Wilhelm Wundt directed his interests towards cultural anthropology. Although Malinovsky spent most of his fieldwork

in New Guinea and northeastern Melanesia, in particular the Trobriand Islands, for some time he also studied the Australian tribes, the Hopi in Arizona, the Bemba and Chagga in East Africa, and the Zapotec in Mexico. Despite the influence of scientists known for their truly encyclopedic approach: Wundt, Westermarck, Hobhouse, Fraser and Ellis, -

V his own research, he strictly followed

Foreword

modern standards, involving a thorough study of all aspects of the life of a particular tribe. His dive

V The culture of the people of the Trobriand Islands was probably as deep as it is possible for a field study, which takes place using all the achievements of the latest methods, including knowledge of the language and checking the conclusions and general information received from the natives with specific examples from their lives. The result of this work was a whole series of books, where the life of the Trobriandians is described in all its diversity. As Malinovsky himself pointed out, he, like any empirical researcher in a particular field science, in the array of observable facts had to be seen as something that seemed to him general and universal. But he always insisted that a final conclusion about the value of his general ideas, based on specific knowledge of the Trobriand culture, for the entire spectrum of sociological phenomena is possible only after testing these general provisions on all ethnographic material available for observation.

Simultaneously with serious field work, Malinovsky was constantly concerned with the development of theory. There was something of the Platonic admiration for beauty hidden in the perfection of an ordered set of theoretical propositions. The theory appeased the "willful mental hunger" which, in the end, leads to knowledge. He considered theory in its practical aspects - not only as a tool that allows the field researcher to anticipate conclusions, but as an explanation. He insisted relentlessly that anthropology needed a deeper theoretical analysis, especially one that came from direct contact with the natives. In this respect, theory was the instrument by which research became something more than a clumsy enumeration of a range of possibilities; theory was a necessary guide to the selection of facts, an indispensable element of any sound descriptive scientific work. But culture as a whole, no less than the particular features of the practice of a particular tribe, needed

V explanation. Malinowski was convinced that cultural phenomena are not just the result of whimsical ingenuity or borrowing, they are determined by basic needs and the ability to satisfy them. Such a functional understanding, he believed, explains the diversity and difference, and also determines the general measure of this diversity. This book is the author's last detailed development of these ideas.

Professor Malinovsky died on May 16, 1942. At the request of Mrs. Malinovskaya, I took over the work of publishing the manuscript. Fortunately, Professor Malinowski himself looked through the typescript.

This version is up to the 200th page1, so I could limit myself to correcting typos and obvious typos. The main theoretical positions of Malinovsky are also clarified in two previously unpublished essays included in this volume. I am grateful to Mrs. Malinovskaya and Mr. Blake Egan for their help in preparing the book for publication.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CULTURE

In the present edition, this corresponds to the text up to p. 161. - Note. ed.

Chapter 1 CULTURE AS A SUBJECT

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Ermin "the science of man" in relation to the current academic anthropology sounds somewhat presumptuous, not to say meaningless. Many disciplines, old and venerable or newly emerging, are also concerned with the study of human nature, the creations of his hands and the relationships between people. All of them, taken together or separately, can legitimately consider themselves branches of the science of man. The most ancient here will, of course, be ethics, theology, history and interpretations of laws and customs. Such knowledge can also be found among the peoples that remain to this day in the Stone Age, and, of course, they flourished in the ancient civilizations of China and India, Asia Minor and Egypt. Economics and jurisprudence, political science and aesthetics, linguistics, archeology and comparative religion are the latest contributions to the science of man. Just a couple of centuries ago, psychology - the study of the soul - and later sociology - the study of relationships between people - added to the list of officially recognized academic sciences

Anthropology as a science of man in general, as the most comprehensive humanitarian discipline - a kind of minister without a portfolio - was the last to appear. She had to work hard to defend her rights to the breadth of the material, subject and method. It absorbed into itself what others had put aside, and even went on to invade the old stocks of knowledge about man. It now consists of areas of study such as the study of prehistoric man, folklore, physical anthropology, and cultural anthropology. All of them are dangerously close to the traditional fields of study of social and natural sciences: psychology, history, archeology, sociology and anatomy.

This new science was born under the star of evolutionary enthusiasm, anthropometric methods and discoveries in the study of

B. Malinovsky. Scientific theory of culture

ancient person. Not surprisingly, her initial interests centered around reconstructing the beginning of the human race, searching for the "missing link" and drawing parallels between prehistoric finds and ethnographic data. Looking back at the achievements of the previous century, we find only a scattered collection of antiquarian junk and scraps of knowledge, including ethnographic erudition, measuring and counting skulls and bones, and a collection of sensational information about our only half-human ancestors. Such a critical appraisal, however, would overlook the contribution of such pioneers in the comparative study of cultures as Herbert Spencer and Adolf Bastian, Edward Tylor and Lewis Morgan, General Pitt Rivers and Frederick Ratzel, W. Sumner and Rudolf Steinmetz, Emile Durkheim and A. Keller. All these thinkers, as well as their followers, gradually approached the development of a scientific theory of human behavior, to a deeper understanding of human nature, society and culture.

Therefore, an anthropologist writing about the scientific approach to the study of man faces a difficult and very important task. He is obliged to determine how the different branches of anthropology actually relate. He must indicate the place that anthropology should occupy among the related human sciences. And he will have to re-answer the old question: in what sense can the humanities be scientific.

In this essay, I will try to show that the intersection of all branches of anthropology is the scientific study of culture. Once the physical anthropologist recognizes that "a race is what it does," he will also have to accept the fact that no measurements, classifications, or descriptions of anthropological type will be meaningful until we can correlate anthropological type and cultural creativity. this race. The tasks of a specialist in prehistoric man, as well as an archaeologist, are to restore intact the life realities of the bygone culture, based on fragmentary information obtained from the study of material remains. An ethnologist who uses the evidence of contemporary primitive and more advanced cultures in an attempt to reconstruct human history, whether in terms of evolutionism or diffusionism, is equally capable of basing his arguments on strictly scientific data only if he imagines that there is a culture. Finally, the field ethnographer cannot observe until he knows what is significant and essential, and what must be discarded as incidental and accidental. Thus, the share of science in any anthropological work is to create a theory of culture, interconnected with the method

Chapter 1. Culture as a subject of scientific research

field observation and with the meaning of culture as a process and as a result.

In addition, I think that anthropology, participating in the creation of a scientific image of its subject, namely culture, is able to provide other humanities with an extremely important service. Culture, as the broadest context for human behavior, is just as important to the psychologist as it is to the sociologist, historian, or linguist. I believe that the linguistics of the future, especially as far as the theory of meaning is concerned, will turn into the study of language in its cultural context. Or, for example, economics as a science of material values ​​used as a means of exchange and production, could in the future find it useful to study a person not in isolation from all other, apart from purely economic, goals and values, but substantiating their arguments and conclusions with knowledge of a person moving in a complex and multidimensional environment dictated by culture interests. Indeed, most modern trends in economics, no matter how they are called: institutional, psychological or historical, supplement the old, purely economic theories, placing a person in the context of his many motives, interests and habits, that is, they believe that a person makes him a person. complex, partly rational, partly emotional environment of cultural attitudes.

Similarly, jurisprudence is gradually moving away from the view of the law as a closed self-sufficient whole and begins to consider it as one of several systems of control, within which the concepts of purpose, value, moral norms and custom should be taken into account along with the purely formal apparatus of the code, court and police. Thus, not only anthropology, but also the science of man in general, including all social sciences, all new psychologically or sociologically oriented disciplines, can and should contribute to the construction of a common scientific basis, which, of necessity, will turn out to be the same for different areas of the study of man.

Chapter 2 THE MINIMUM REQUIRED

DEFINITION OF SCIENCE FOR THE HUMANITARIAN

It remains for us to determine more precisely why and how anthropology, along with other social sciences, can claim to be directly involved in the creation of a scientific approach to the study of man. To begin with, I would like to say that the scientific approach is not the only, apparently, source of inspiration and interest in the humanities. A certain moral or philosophical position; aesthetic, philological or theological inspiration; the desire to know more about the past, because the past appeals to our feelings, and this does not need to be proved and cannot be denied - these are the fundamental motives of humanitarian research. At the same time, science is absolutely necessary, at least as a tool, as a means to an end.

I will try to show that the truly scientific method has always been, to one degree or another, inherent in works on history, the compilation of chronicles, the evidence part of jurisprudence, economics.

And linguistics. There is no description completely devoid of theory. Whatever you are doing: reconstructing historical events, field research in a tribe of savages or in a civilized community, analyzing statistics or inferences based on the study of an archaeological site or find related to to the prehistoric past - in any case, each of your conclusions and each argument must be expressed in words, and therefore in concepts. Any concept, in turn, is the result of some theory, which assumes that some facts are significant, while others are accidental.

And introduced, that some factors determine the course of events, while others are only incidental episodes, and that individuals, masses of people, or the material forces of nature influence the fact that an event occurs in this way and not otherwise. Dentist discrimination

nomothetic and idiographic disciplines,1 a philosophical trick that should have vanished long ago as a result of a simple reflection on what observation or reconstruction of historical fact is. Difficulties arise here only because most of the principles, generalizations and theories in historical reconstruction were not expressed explicitly and were of an intuitive nature, and not systematic. The ordinary historian and many anthropologists spend a fair amount of their theorizing energy and epistemological leisure on refuting the idea of ​​a natural scientifically established law in the cultural process, erecting impenetrable partitions between the humanities and natural sciences and arguing that the historian or anthropologist is able to conjure up pictures of the past with the help of a special kind of insight, insight and revelation, in short, that he can rely on the grace of God instead of a system of methods of conscientious scientific work.

Whatever definition we give to the word "science" within a particular philosophical or epistemological system, it is clear that science begins with the use of past observation to predict the future. In this sense, the spirit and cause of science should have been present in the rational behavior of man already at the very beginning of the long journey of the creation and development of culture. Take for example any primitive craft, one of those from which culture probably began and which now in a developed and transformed form still stand on the same foundations: the art of making fire, making wooden and stone tools, building the simplest shelters or arranging caves. under dwellings. What should we assume about the rational behavior of man, the constant incorporation of forms of this rational behavior into tradition, and the fidelity of each generation to the traditional knowledge inherited from the ancestors?

One of the simplest and most fundamental crafts is making fire. Here, along with the skill of the craftsman, we also find a certain scientific theory embodied in every action, and therefore in the tribal tradition. Such a tradition was supposed to define in a general, abstract way the material and form of the two types of wood used. The tradition should indicate the principles of construction of the action, the type of muscular movements, their speed, ways of holding the spark and feeding the flame with combustible material. This tradition did not live in books or

1 The idiographic approach involves a thorough description of the material, the nomothetic approach seeks to establish general patterns. (Here

B, Malinovsky. Scientific theory of culture

was explicitly formulated as a physical theory. But it contained two elements: pedagogical and theoretical. First of all, first of all, the tradition was embodied in the motor skills of the hands of each generation and, by personal example and in the process of learning, was passed on to the younger members of society. Secondly, whatever means of expression the primitive symbolism used - it could be a verbal message, an expressive gesture, or a certain action with objects - this symbolism had to work, and I myself observed this in my fieldwork. We are forced to conclude that this is the case, because it would be impossible to achieve the result, namely, lighting a fire, without fulfilling the necessary and sufficient conditions regarding material and procedure.

I would like to add that primitive knowledge includes

V yourself is another factor. When we study today's savages who make fire by friction, make stone tools and build the simplest shelters, their rational behavior, fidelity to the theoretical principles underlying their actions, and technical accuracy - we can observe that all this is determined by a meaningful purpose of activity. This goal represents some value in their culture. They value it because it fulfills one of their vital needs. This is a prerequisite for their survival. Meanwhile, both the motor skills of the hands and theoretical knowledge are constantly permeated with such value. The scientific attitude to the world, embodied in all primitive technology, as well as in economic and social organization, which is a reliance on past experience with a view to future results, is an integrating factor that, as it should be assumed, has been working from the very beginning of mankind, from those very since this animal species began to move forward

V as homo sapiens, homo faber and homo politicus. Disappear this scientific attitude and its high status in at least one generation of primitive society, and such a society would either return back to the animal state, or, more likely, would cease to exist.

Thus, primitive man, using a scientific approach, had to isolate significant moments in the initial set of environmental factors, random adaptations and sensory data and embody them in systems of relations and determining factors. The ultimate goal that motivated this was primarily biological survival. Fire is essential for warmth and cooking, security and lighting. Stone tools, wood products and structures, mats and vessels had to be made for the purpose of human survival.

Chapter 2

All kinds of productive activity were based on some kind of theory, within which significant factors were determined, the correctness of the theory was highly valued, and the prediction of the result was based on clearly systematized data obtained from past experience.

The main thing that I am trying to substantiate now is not even that primitive man had his own science, but rather that, firstly, the scientific attitude to the world is as old as culture itself, and, secondly, that the minimal definition of science is derived from any action pragmatically aimed at achieving a result. If we were to test our conclusions about the nature of science, drawn from the analysis of the discoveries, inventions and theories of primitive man, by comparing these discoveries with the progress in physics of the times of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Faraday, we would find the same signs delimiting science from other types of mental and behavioral activity of a person. Here and there we find the singling out of real and relevant factors in a given process. The reality and relevance of these factors is revealed in observation or in experiment, which establishes their steady repetition. The constant verification of the truth by experience, as well as the original substantiation of the theory, obviously belong to the very essence of science. A theory that turns out to be wrong must be corrected if it is discovered where it is wrong. Therefore, an ongoing cross-fertilization of experience and theoretical principles is necessary. In fact, science begins where general principles must be subjected to the test of facts and where, in human activity, practical questions and theoretical relationships of relevant factors are used to manipulate reality. Therefore, the minimal definition of science invariably implies the existence of general laws, a field of experiment or observation, and not least the testing of academic reasoning by practical application.

And this is where anthropology can stake its claim. In this work, for a number of reasons, all paths of theory must converge on culture, that is, on the central subject of the broadest context of all humanitarian research. Meanwhile, anthropology, especially in its modern manifestations, takes credit for the fact that most of its ministers are engaged in ethnographic field work, and therefore empirical research. Anthropology may have been the first social science to establish a laboratory along with a theoretical seminar. An ethnologist studies the realities of culture in a huge variety of environmental conditions, ethnic and psychological situations. He must simultaneously master the skills