文化の超有機性についての考察 : D. Bidney: Theoretical Anthropologyをめぐって

抄録

This is a continuation of the writer's argument tried in his previous articles which appeared in this Journal (Vol. 15, 1950, No. 1; Vol. 15, 1951, No. 3. 4), the one being "Psychological Reflections on the Superorganic Theory of Culture"; the other, a critical review of L. A. White's The Science of Culture. D. Bidey's Theoretical Anthropology (1953) has much in it, especially the first six chapters, that concerns the subject, and it helped the writer to think more about the nature of culture in the same line. The writer proceeds in this article by centering first on the ideas contained in each of the six chapters of Bidney's work and secondarily on the ideas of A. L. Kroeber to whom Bidney seems to owe much. Bidney's theory of culture begins from an attempt to understand man himself. Kroeber gives up trying to think of man at the outset, for he adheres to the view that man is essentially organic and that culture is essentially superorganic. Hence for Kroeber culture is superindividual. Culture for Bidney, however, is a dead thing if viewed as separate from man. Bidney's main thesis of culture is that behind culture lies human nature which originated the cultural process. He says that the unique nature of man lies in his symbolic function which has enabled him to create language and culture, a "new dimension of reality" not opened to the rest of the animal kingdom. In 1917 kroeber insisted that one should take culture as separated from man. This viewpoint can also be seen in his speech of 1948 given at Chicago University. So, it can be said that he has clung to this viewpoint consistently. Against that stands Bidney, and the writer agrees with him. Why? The writer's defense for this position starts by raising a question of whether man wholly and simply remains an organism in the biological sense as Kroeber conceives him to be. According to Bidney the concept of superorganic is interpreted in at least three distinct ways: that of H. Spencer, the psychological, and that of Kroeder. Evidently he takes side with the second. "This conception of the superorganic", he says, "not only fails to exclude, but even necessitates, an internal relation between culture and the psychological nature of man", and this psychological nature of man (symbolization) is meant by him to be superorganic as shown in his saying "insofar as culture is said to depend upon the psychological, superorganic nature of man, cultural phenomena may be explained by reference to the individual, as well as to society". Truly, it should even logically be so. However, he does not explain why that psychological nature of man can be presumed to be superorganic. The writer attempts to think over the problem as follows. It is possible for man to suppress or control his biological needs. For instance, he is able not to eat when he needs and wants to eat; he is able to kill himself if he so chooses while to keep life is a universal biological need of all living beings. The writer thinks that in these simple facts we perceive the superorganic or superbiological functions of man. We can say that man who objectively sees the needs within himself and controls them also objectively sees himself as an object. The human being that objectvely sees himself naturally sees his actions, things and events as objects, too. This mental function was named by D. Katz "Objectivization". Things objectified in general, though actually being things particular in space and time, have general meanings at tile same time, for to objectify a thing means to perceive it as belonging to a certain kind, a kind being abstract and general. Things which are objectified can be named by terms with general meaning. If a certain animal is called, say, a "horse", it means that that being is objectified and perceived as one belonging to the kind of animal

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)