Vergleich Neomarxismus - Kulturmaterialsimus

shinju , Mittwoch, 07.03.2007, 12:49 (vor 6470 Tagen) @ David

» Hallo zusammen,
» kann miir evtl. Jemand ein paar Anhaltspunkte zu dieser Frage geben>
»
» "Der Kulturmaterialismus und der Neomarxismus teilen die Annahme, daß
» menschliche Kulturen sehr stark von den materiellen Bedingungen bestimmt
» sind. Was trennt sie trotz dieser Gemeinsamkeit>"
»
» würde mich über jeden kleinsten Funken Wissen freuen..
»
» Danke und Gruß
» David

Vielleicht hilft dir das weiter:

(...)
The term cultural materialism was coined by Marvin Harris in his foundational text, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968). The aim of cultural materialism is best described by Harris who wrote that "[t]he task of cultural materialism is to create a pan-human science of society whose findings can be accepted on logical and evidentiary grounds by the pan-human community" (Harris 1979: xii). In accordance with these lofty aims, the paradigm combines many schools of anthropological thought including social evolutionary theory, cultural ecology, and especially Marxist materialism (Barfield 1997: 232).
(...)
Cultural materialism is an expansion of the Marxist model of three levels of culture (infrastructure, structure, and superstructure). Unlike Marxist theory, however, cultural materialism privileges both productive (economic) and reproductive (demographic) forces in societies. As such, demographic, environmental, and technological changes are invoked to explain cultural variation (Barfield 1997: 232). A technical, but important difference between Marxism and cultural materialism is that cultural materialism explains the structural features of a society in terms of production within the infrastructure only (Harris 1996: 277). Marxists, however, argue that production is a material condition located in the base (See American Material Page) that acts upon (and is acted upon by) the infrastructure (Harris 1996: 277-178). Thus, cultural materialists see the infrastructure-structure relationship as being mostly in one direction, while Marxists see the relationship as reciprocal. Cultural materialism also differs from Marxism in its lack of class theory. Unlike Marxism, cultural materialism addresses relations of unequal power recognizing innovations or changes that benefit both upper and lower classes (Harris 1996: 278). Marxism treats all culture change as being beneficial only to the ruling class. Also, both cultural materialism and Marxism are evolutionary in proposing that culture change results from innovations selected by society because of beneficial increases to productive capabilities (Engels, quoted by Harris 1979: 141-142). Cultural materialism, however, does not envision a final utopian form (Harris 1996: 280).

(...)
Criticisms of cultural materialism are plentiful in anthropology. As with all of the different paradigms in anthropology (e.g., functionalism, structuralism, and Marxism), cultural materialism does have its flaws. Cultural materialism has been termed "vulgar materialism" by Marxists such as J. Friedman because opponents believe cultural materialists’ empirical approach to culture change is too simple and straight forward (Friedman 1974). Marxists believe that cultural materialists rely too heavily on the one-directional infrastructure-superstructure relationship to explain culture change, and that the relationship between the "base" (a distinct level of a sociocultural system, underlying the structure, in Marxist terminology) and the superstructure must be dialectically viewed (Friedman 1974).
(...)

->Quelle und kompletter Text:
ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES:
A GUIDE PREPARED BY STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS
"Cultural Materialism"
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/cultmat.htm