Ethics of Anthropology with Ruth Benedict

PHI 240

Patrick White

From Anthropology and the Abnormal

Ruth Benedict

The Elements of Reason #1

1.  The main purpose of this article is? The purpose of the article is to show that maybe society is a construct and the idea of what is “good or bad” is created by that very construct. This article shows that what we as a group have viewed as generally good is what we think of as normal, and what we think of as bad, is what we view to be abnormal. The author states in her excerpt, “We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits,” (34).

2.     The key questions are: What is normal? What is morality? Why does our society think that? If society creates our morals, why can’t we change them ourselves as individuals?

3.     The most important information in this article is? The most important information in this article is the discussion of how different the norms and mores of developing cultures are. Benedict explains how the things that we think are abnormal or wrong, may be considered good. For instance, she writes about how many of these cultures believe that people who use trance and cataleptic phenomena are highly regarded there, where here, we would think people like that were crazy and push them out with fear for the general populous. Another point one could make is whether or not religion plays a role in this argument. Some religions have rules that should be followed while others state that the behavior would be against the belief or a sin and be considered abnormal.

4.     The key concepts we need to understand in this article is (are)

One of the most important key concepts of this article is that we create morality. It is up to us as a society what is good and what is bad. We created this society and this society made up the rules of ethics, so basically, we, as a part of this society, created these rules, and theoretically we should be able to alter them. As Benedict quoted in her excerpt, “In other words, most individuals are plastic to the moulding force of the society into which they are born.”. (34-35) We also need to understand what it means while differentiating what is normal, or good, and what is abnormal (bad) and if it is strictly relative to us as a culture or if it is universal.

5.     The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking (are)?

The main assumption in this article, or what the author is probably thinking themselves, is that 1) humans are ridiculous in focusing on these things so much that we created and would probably be ok without, 2) the world would be a much better place if we realized we had an effect on the ideas in our everyday lives. Perhaps she just thought we should be nicer to “deviants” or people with mental illnesses. Maybe she is thinking that mental illness is also created by society and if we embraced it we could be happier.

6.      A) If people take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are:

The implications are that people could realize the impact they have and make a change. Gay people, trans people, those with mental illnesses and ailments and socially awkward people, could be seen as normal, or they would be seen in a better light than others. She writes about how there were where men who took on the role of women were thought of as better in some respects and were not looked down upon. Some cultures also believe there are major consequences that come with being homosexual. On page 33 benedict writes “…and we tend to identify the consequences of this conflict with homosexuality. But these consequences are obviously local and cultural. Homosexuals in many societies are not incompetent, but they may be such if the culture asks adjustment of them that would stain any man’s vitality.”

B) If people fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the consequences are:

The consequences are that people may take this differently. The “bad” in the world may take over and would not be considered bad. It would be considered ideal, and this could potentially create chaos, but would we even recognize it as said chaos, or would we simply not know any better like right from wrong? As time would move, we could lose sight of the aspect that we have now and the wrong that we see then would be just a norm. Other than that, I do not know what else could happen, because I have a particularly hard time thinking of this coming to a climax.