Философия/4. Философия культуры

Старший преподаватель Черниговская А.И.

Старший преподаватель Салей Е. В.

Гродненский государственный университет им. Я. Купалы, Беларусь

Psychocultural Processes: Individual Behavior as a Level of Analysis

The task of this article is to introduce two different approaches to sociocultural change that incorporate psychological variables. We are going to analyze what factors are considered and how they are treated depends on the sorts of questions the analyst wishes to answer.

In cultural anthropology, the scholar who has unquestionably contributed the most systematic and comprehensive discussion of innovation processes is Homer Barnett. Barnett arrived at two fundamental conclusions: 1) that culture traits, whether material or nonmaterial, are not “discrete inflexible wholes” but can be subdivided into qualities of form, meaning, function, and operating principle, any of which can be modified by recipient peoples, and 2) that the processes of modification and incorporation are basically mental processes, occurring in the minds of individuals [1]. The important point is that by describing the nature of culture, Barnett was describing what he intended to study as the primary elements in culture change: changes in ideas. And, because multi-individual ideas are subject to the same principles as idiosyncratic ones, the analyst could justifiably concern himself with how “new” or “different” ideas emerge in individuals. This, for Barnett, was the key to processes of sociocultural change, although the emergence of new ideas simply makes change possible – it does not cause it to take place. Change results from the acceptance of the novelties by the group.

Innovation is the recombination of previously existing ideas into a new idea (or mental configuration, in Barnett’s terms). The process is rapid, complex, and often subconscious on the part of the individual. It is essential to keep in mind that the process goes on within the individual’s brain, and that its basic units are ideas (mental configurations), not material items. The three steps – analysis, identification, and substitution – together comprise the innovation process. Innovation is not a process limited only to geniuses or inventors. Everyone innovates, and most are unaware that they are doing so because the innovative combinations of configurations are so fleeting and at times so trivial that they never force themselves fully into the individual’s consciousness. The rates at which individuals innovate apparently vary, as does the relative emphasis placed on innovations in one or another component of a group’s life-way. Both the rate and nature of the innovations are influenced by their cultural setting.

Barnett described what factors are important in the modification process, from the perspective of the individual acceptor-innovator [2]. Generally, the individual must assign some sort of meaning to the innovation – it must have significance for him; and from his perspective, acceptance must bring with it some advantage he would not otherwise enjoy. If both conditions are not present, then the innovation will probably be rejected. Exactly how does innovation play a part in acceptance? The potential acceptor first analyzes the proffered novelty in terms of his pre-existing configurations that he believes are relevant. He then matches or identifies components of the new with those of the old and, according to his criteria of evaluation, decides whether or not to substitute the new configuration for the pre-existing one. The apparent difference between innovation-innovation and acceptance-innovation is that the “new” configuration originates in the former and not in the latter. But, in fact, Barnett argued that the novelty for the innovator is not quite the same as novelty for the acceptor. The reason is the philosophical-psychological one that the mental configurations of two or more people are never identical. Even though the acceptor may think his “new” configuration is exactly that offered by the innovator, it is not; inevitably the acceptor adds to the novelty of the innovator’s “new” idea [2].

Generally, innovation potential will be greater among individuals in sociocultural systems 1) that have a relatively large inventory of culture traits (both material and non-material) and that are relatively “open” in the sense that communication of ideas among various group is fostered; 2) in which there is a generally good possibility for immigration into the system; and 3) in which competition between individuals or organizations is not squelched [2]. On the negative side, innovative potential is usually quite high in situations of disaster or among groups who feel to be rejected, devalued, or humiliated by other groups in the same sociocultural system.

Innovation is going on all the time, among all individuals. Only when considered within a sociocultural context can it be understood why groups vary in their rate of innovations or why some types of innovations are more readily accepted than others. Acceptance also usually depends in part upon how and by whom the novelty is “sold” to the group, and this juncture the role of the advocate becomes extremely important.

Innovation is the basis of all sociocultural change. Diffusion, evaluation, stresses and strains within systems – all are ultimately products of the human propensity to create new ideas out of old ones. But there can be no sociocultural change without acceptance of innovation; and immediately when we broach the issue of acceptance (or even when attempting to understand a specific innovation), the larger sociocultural context becomes a crucial variable. All this is to say that even though the analytical level focuses upon the individual mental process, no specific example of change is intelligible without invoking variables from the more inclusive sociocultural level of abstraction.

Литература:

1. Barnett H.G. Invention and Culture Change / H.G. Barnett – American Anthropologist 44, 1942. – p. 14-30.

2. Barnett H.G. Innovation: The Basis of Culture Change / H.G. Barnett –N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1953.

3. Bee R.L. Patterns and Processes / R.L. Bee. – N.Y.: The Free Press, 1974. – 260 p.