lOMoARcPSD| 62788957
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Self and The Person in Contemporary Anthropology
Are there characteristics and experiences which are inherently common among us? Are there universals
in terms of our biological endowments and predispositions? Given the uniformity in terms of our
physiology and genetic profile, are our behaviours and actions rooted from the same drives and passions?
And do we share the same biological needs?
With the identicalness of our physical environment and the cultures in which we thrive, can we affirm that
all men are alike? These questions about human universals form part of the central themes of
anthropology since its inception as a scientific discipline.
In their book, Personality in Nature, Society and Culture, psychologist Henry Murray and anthropologist
Clyde Kluckhohn (1953) claimed that “Every man is in certain respects like all other men, like some other
men, and like no other man.” This statement pictured how pre-contemporary and contemporary
anthropology viewed the human person. The pre-contemporary view of human nature demonstrated
sameness, invariability, and universality where man was regarded as identical, constant, and general.
Humans, like all other species, are considered essentially the same regardless of place and time. Thus,
they are predictable and can be studied uniformly.
While recognizing the self as an unchanging entity, anthropologists also accept its inherent variability.
Contemporary anthropologists subscribe to a more holistic approach in studying the self by looking unto
human variety brought about by variations across cultures and variations over time.
They suggest that the human person can be studied from many points of view. And that it’s only when we
study the full range of human phenomenon and consider the inescapable fact that men are in many
respects like no other man, can we genuinely appreciate human nature. This calls for a more
comprehensive and encompassing approach towards understanding the human person. That is, taking
into account all the physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural elements that make up the self.
This pursuit towards a holistic appreciation of the human nature was supported scientifically. For instance,
Anthropology Professor Katherine Ewing asserted an integrative stance on the self by defining it as one
that which “encompasses the physical organism, possessing all aspects of psychological functioning, and
social attributes”, (1990:254). Even the neurobiologist Joseph LeDoux described the self as the totality of
what an organism is physically, biologically, psychologically, socially, and culturally. He further claimed
that though the self is a unit, it is not unitary” (2002: 31).
Considering then the totality of all the processes and elements that constitute the self and the
interrelationship between and amongst these remain to be fundamental in understanding the human
being.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Self and The Person in Contemporary Anthropology
Are there characteristics and experiences which are inherently common among us? Are there universals
in terms of our biological endowments and predispositions? Given the uniformity in terms of our
physiology and genetic profile, are our behaviours and actions rooted from the same drives and passions?
And do we share the same biological needs?
With the identicalness of our physical environment and the cultures in which we thrive, can we affirm that
all men are alike? These questions about human universals form part of the central themes of
anthropology since its inception as a scientific discipline.
In their book, Personality in Nature, Society and Culture, psychologist Henry Murray and anthropologist
Clyde Kluckhohn (1953) claimed that “Every man is in certain respects like all other men, like some other
men, and like no other man.” This statement pictured how pre-contemporary and contemporary
anthropology viewed the human person. The pre-contemporary view of human nature demonstrated
sameness, invariability, and universality where man was regarded as identical, constant, and general.
Humans, like all other species, are considered essentially the same regardless of place and time. Thus,
they are predictable and can be studied uniformly.
While recognizing the self as an unchanging entity, anthropologists also accept its inherent variability.
Contemporary anthropologists subscribe to a more holistic approach in studying the self by looking unto
human variety brought about by variations across cultures and variations over time.
They suggest that the human person can be studied from many points of view. And that it’s only when we
study the full range of human phenomenon and consider the inescapable fact that men are in many
respects like no other man, can we genuinely appreciate human nature. This calls for a more
comprehensive and encompassing approach towards understanding the human person. That is, taking
into account all the physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural elements that make up the self.
This pursuit towards a holistic appreciation of the human nature was supported scientifically. For instance,
Anthropology Professor Katherine Ewing asserted an integrative stance on the self by defining it as one
that which “encompasses the physical organism, possessing all aspects of psychological functioning, and
social attributes”, (1990:254). Even the neurobiologist Joseph LeDoux described the self as the totality of
what an organism is physically, biologically, psychologically, socially, and culturally. He further claimed
that though the self is a unit, it is not unitary” (2002: 31).
Considering then the totality of all the processes and elements that constitute the self and the
interrelationship between and amongst these remain to be fundamental in understanding the human
being.
