The article thoroughly discusses the theories that guide the Ifaluk in describing and explaining human nature in terms of behavior, consciousness, differences and similarities of their concepts of self and others. The author broadly describes how the Ifaluk speak of themselves as persons who are relatively undivided internally and socially. The Ifaluk can, according to the author, be described further as having an emotional mind that understands evens in a way that is simultaneously cognitive and affective.
What I find most interesting is the authors discussion on personhood in the context of the Ifaluks belief of the undivided self and how they define the boundaries between self and other. The strong emphasis given by the Ifaluk on perceived and desired similarities between self and other, as described by the author, seems to challenge the definition of individuality in Western culture. I find this worthy of further discussion because the notion of inclusivity in several aspects of discourse in their culture (the frequent use of the pronouns we and our rather than I and my) is similarly of strong contrast to our culture of individuality where we are freely able to talk about ourselves separate from other people.
The concepts of thoughtemotion (nunuwan) and willemotiondesire (tip) in Ifaluk culture intrigued me most as these concepts were described as being both similar and different. The author describes the two as difficult to distinguish from one another as they are often seen as describing aspects of the same phenomenon. I find these concepts problematic because they can easily encompass or, in certain instances, negate each other depending on the context in which they are used.
I find that the use of ethnopsychology as the domain of study in the article as appropriate. It was able to clearly demonstrate the interconnections of the concepts of self and others, as well as of thought and emotion in the context of the cultural construction as well as human nature of the Ifaluk.
What I find most interesting is the authors discussion on personhood in the context of the Ifaluks belief of the undivided self and how they define the boundaries between self and other. The strong emphasis given by the Ifaluk on perceived and desired similarities between self and other, as described by the author, seems to challenge the definition of individuality in Western culture. I find this worthy of further discussion because the notion of inclusivity in several aspects of discourse in their culture (the frequent use of the pronouns we and our rather than I and my) is similarly of strong contrast to our culture of individuality where we are freely able to talk about ourselves separate from other people.
The concepts of thoughtemotion (nunuwan) and willemotiondesire (tip) in Ifaluk culture intrigued me most as these concepts were described as being both similar and different. The author describes the two as difficult to distinguish from one another as they are often seen as describing aspects of the same phenomenon. I find these concepts problematic because they can easily encompass or, in certain instances, negate each other depending on the context in which they are used.
I find that the use of ethnopsychology as the domain of study in the article as appropriate. It was able to clearly demonstrate the interconnections of the concepts of self and others, as well as of thought and emotion in the context of the cultural construction as well as human nature of the Ifaluk.
Categories:
0 comments:
Отправить комментарий