xmcamail.9903: Functionalist Dilemma

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6ADF.B5C39E60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am currently reading Mary Douglas' book How Institutions Think (1986,
Syracuse University Press) and have come across a theme that is confusing
me. I am enjoying the book wholeheartedly and wading through her discussion
of latent groups but am confused with her statement "Without a functionalist
form of argument, we cannot begin to explain how a thought world constructs
the thought style that controls its experience." (p. 43). On its face this
seems wholly sensible. I am enjoying the structure that she is bringing to
my understanding of how we even define a cultural group.

This, however, is contrasted with a statement (about a theme) that Jean Lave
makes in Cognition in Practice (1988, Cambridge University Press): "The
concept of cultural uniformity reflects functionalist assumptions about
society as a consensual order, and cultural transmission as a process of
homogeneous cultural reproductions across generations." (p. 10).

Now I realize that using categories at the social level to describe,
explain, or interpret phenomena at the local level is problematic. But isn't
it necessary to use a functionalist argument even to get the ideas into
language? And if we can't argue from a functionalist perspective what else
is there?

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE6ADF.B5C39E60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am=20 currently reading Mary Douglas' book How Institutions Think (1986, = Syracuse=20 University Press) and have come across a theme that is confusing me. I = am=20 enjoying the book wholeheartedly and wading through her discussion of = latent=20 groups but am confused with her statement "Without a functionalist = form of=20 argument, we cannot begin to explain how a thought world constructs the = thought=20 style that controls its experience." (p. 43). On its face this = seems wholly=20 sensible. I am enjoying the structure that she is bringing to my = understanding=20 of how we even define a cultural group.

This,=20 however, is contrasted with a statement (about a theme) that Jean Lave = makes in=20 Cognition in Practice (1988, Cambridge University Press): "The = concept of=20 cultural uniformity reflects functionalist assumptions about society as = a=20 consensual order, and cultural transmission as a process of homogeneous = cultural=20 reproductions across generations." (p. 10).

Now I=20 realize that using categories at the social level to describe, explain, = or=20 interpret phenomena at the local level is problematic. But isn't it = necessary to=20 use a functionalist argument even to get the ideas into language? And if = we=20 can't argue from a functionalist perspective what else is there?=20