If you've read Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture...?

Question

What did you think of it, what does it say to you? Does it have anything to teach us today, what message, if any?

Answer 1

I have answered you on this already. The strength of science is it's ever changing theory; the ever greater winnowing out of the truth.

The weakness of social science is it's inability to " let go " of the refuted. Rather a pack rat mentality.

Ruth Benedict is a prime example of social science ossification. Find something valid to read. I suggest the early papers of Robert Trivers, collected in the volume; " Natural Selection and Social Theory ". A bit of algebra, but well worth reading. Benedict is so 19th century and wrong.

Answer 2

Copy and pasted from the last time you asked this:

The book is really quite abstract, however, leave it to the Boasians to not ever get across in words what they try to mean. The assertion that societies pick aspects of culture they want incorporated into their social being is quite out of date. However, the basic tenet that culture is over society still rings true to this day. I believe this work is what led to the introduction of Structural Functionalism into the theory of American anthropology at the time. This book really didn't answer any questions for anthropologists at the time. It is still a good read for those interested in the theoretical history of the discipline though.

Edit:

Wow, who knew this was going to turn messy LOL. Not sure why I got a thumbs down as I was giving an opinion which we are all entitled to. I wasn't trying to say that the book did not contribute anything to anthro, I was just saying the ideas she presented are out of touch with modern theoretical paradigms (however not as out of touch as postmodernism. Honestly the worst thing that ever happened to the field was the introduction of postmodernism and postmodern ideas). Anyway, the only reason I brought up the Structural Functionalists was to point out that it was because some American anthropologists were not happy with how the people from the Boasian school were not doing enough to answer basic questions that anthropology was supposed to answer. Patterns of Culture was pretty much the epitome of the Boasian theoretical framework. So they looked to the British traditions.

Answer 3

i remember reading that ages ago & in graduate school.  from what i remember, what was 'in' then isn't in today.   it was within her writings that benedict stated, on her travels into the heart of africa, that no ancient civilization could have/would have florished.  as per benedict, that area! the heat! the jungle?  but what she saw was what SHE SAW.  her observations & conclusions were based on what she felt & wished.  she was wrong & ancient cultures were indeed found. the jungle only grew around them after abandonment.  it seems the heat, rain & other elements only bothered her.  hey! is this a college/grad school question?  to loosely quote kurt cobain:  "smells like essay question".  by the way. i the spell check isn't working & it won't allow me corrections. sorry about that.  the word should be 'flourish'.

Answer 4

The information presented in her book still apply to the dynamics  exerted by  acculturation  of the members of the group.  Yes, it gives us insight into the way ideology, cultural values, and gender roles are internalized by the members of the group.