Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-16T21:02:46.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psycho-Social Studies in Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

Robert A. LeVine
Robert A. LeVine*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Psychological explanations of social behavior are currently unfashionable in the “institutional” social sciences of economics, history, sociology and social anthropology--though political science is something of an exception--and it is these disciplines that dominate African and other area studies. Received opinion has it that psycho-social studies of the “culture and personality” or “national character” type were discredited during the 1940's and early 1950's when a number of undisciplined studies claiming to account for the cultural and political patterns of modern nations and nonliterate peoples alike on the basis of child-rearing determinants were published and revealed the fallacious nature of their theory and methods.

On close examination this view may be seen to have several flaws. First, a logically sound theoretical position is not discredited by inadequate empirical studies carried out in its name; insofar as the studies are badly done they do not provide evidence for or against the position. In the case of culture and personality, the pioneering theoretical formulations of W.I. Thomas, Sapir, Linton, and Hallowell have never been refuted on logical or empirical grounds, and in fact their ideas have been extensively used by recent social theorists of the structural-functional school (Parsons and Shils 1951, Parsons 1964, Inkeles and Levinson 1954, Inkeles 1963, Spiro 1961), indicating at least an enduring plausibility in some quarters. Furthermore, it is quite common in intellectual history for the early adherents of a position to make excessive claims for it and to exaggerate the evidence in its favor, but this hardly justifies rejection of the position itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
African Studies Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1970 , pp. 105 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Adorns, T. W., Frankel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N.. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, Mary. Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Benedict, Ruth F. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1946.Google Scholar
Benedict, Ruth F. “Child Rearing in Certain European Countries.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, IXX (1949), 342–350.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W. “Temne and Eskimo Perceptual Skills.” International Journal of Psychology, I (1966), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devons, Ely and Gluckman, Max, eds. Closed Systems and Open Minds. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.Google Scholar
Doob, Leonard. “Psychology.” In Lystad, R., ed. The African World. New York: Praeger, 1965.Google Scholar
Gay, John and Cole, Michael. The New Mathematics and an Old Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967.Google Scholar
Goody, Esther. “Kinship Fostering in Gonja: Deprivation or Advantage?” In Mayer, P., ed. Socialization: The Approach from Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock, 1969.Google Scholar
Gorer, Geoffrey. “Themes in Japanese Culture.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, II, 5 (1943), 106–124.Google Scholar
Gorer, Geoffrey and Rickman, John. The People of Great Russia. London: Cresset, 1949.Google Scholar
Inkeles, Alex. “Sociology and Psychology.” In Koch, S., ed. Psychology: Study of a Science, Vol. VI. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.Google Scholar
Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, D. J.. “National Character.” In Lindzey, G., ed. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.Google Scholar
LeVine, Robert A. “Toward a Psychology of Populations: The Cross-Cultural Study of Personality.” Human Development, IX (1966), 30–46.Google Scholar
LeVine, Robert A. “Culture, Personality, and Socialization: An Evolutionary View.” In Goslin, D.. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Barbara B. “Choice Behavior and Social Structure: A Comparison of Two African Societies.” Journal of Social Psychology, XXXI (1968), 145–151.Google Scholar
Mead, Margaret. “National Character.” In Kroeber, A. L., ed. Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Mead, Margaret. “The Swaddling Hypothesis: Its Reception.” American Anthropologist, LVI (1954), 395–409.Google Scholar
Mead, Margaret and Metraux, Rhoda. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Munroe, R. L., Munroe, R. H., and Daniels, R. E.. “Effect of Status and Values on Estimation of Coin Size in Two East African Societies.” Journal of Social Psychology, LXXVII (1969), 25–34.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. Social Structure and Personality. New York: Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Price-Williams, D.R., ed. Cross-Cultural Studies. London: Penguin, 1969.Google Scholar
Richards, Audrey I. “Socialization and Contemporary British Social Anthropology.” In Mayer, P., ed. Socialization: The Approach from Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock, 1969.Google Scholar
Spiro, Melford E. “Social Systems, Personality, and Functional Analysis.” In Kaplan, B., ed. Studying Personality Cross-Culturally. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1961.Google Scholar
Wrong, Dennis. “The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology.” American Sociological Review, XXVI (1961), 183–193.Google Scholar