In this influential work, first published in English in 1963, Durkheim and Mauss claim that the individual mind is capable of classification and they seek the origin of the ‘classificatory function’ in society. On the basis of an intensive examination of forms and principles of symbolic classification reported from the Australian aborigines, the Zuñi and traditional China, they try to establish a formal correspondence between social and symbolic classification. From this they argue that the mode of classification is determined (...) by the form of society and that the notions of space, time, hierarchy, number, class and other such cognitive categories are products of society. Dr Needham’s introduction assesses the validity of Durkhiem and Mauss’s argument, traces its continued influence in various disciplines, and indicates its analytical value for future researches in social anthropology. (shrink)

The present research examined whether Asian-American (AA) versus European-American (EA) women differed in experiential, expressive, or autonomic physiological responding to a laboratory anger provocation and assessed the mediating role of values about emotional control. Results indicate that AA participants reported and behaviourally displayed less anger than EA participants, while there were no group differences in physiological responses. Observed differences in emotional responses were partially mediated by emotion control values, suggesting a potential mechanism for effects of cultural background on anger responding.

In this influential work, first published in English in 1963, Durkheim and Mauss claim that the individual mind is capable of classification and they seek the origin of the ‘classificatory function’ in society. On the basis of an intensive examination of forms and principles of symbolic classification reported from the Australian aborigines, the Zuñi and traditional China, they try to establish a formal correspondence between social and symbolic classification. From this they argue that the mode of classification is determined (...) by the form of society and that the notions of space, time, hierarchy, number, class and other such cognitive categories are products of society. Dr Needham’s introduction assesses the validity of Durkhiem and Mauss’s argument, traces its continued influence in various disciplines, and indicates its analytical value for future researches in social anthropology. (shrink)

Dans ce classique de la sociologie de la connaissance, Durkheim et Mauss ne s'attaquent à rien de moins qu'au projet de réécrire la table kantienne des catégories : la maîtrise des jugements logiques qu'ils rendent possibles ne sont pas le fruit des seules forces de l'individu, mais ont une origine sociale. Cette hypothèse, ils la testent sur les concepts de genres et d'espèces, et plus généralement sur l'activité scientifique de classes. Ils entendent ainsi établir qu'en Amérique du Nord et (...) chez les Aborigènes d'Australie, tout autant que dans le système divinatoire chinois, stratification sociale et genres naturels primitifs se font écho ; on ne saurait classer les choses sans appartenir à des sociétés structurées. On comprend le profit à tirer de ce constat pour mieux appréhender les activités scientifiques modernes. (shrink)

Offers a fascinating snapshot of magic throughout various cultures as well as deep sociological and religious insights still very much relevant today.

Emily Butler, a psychologist and Professor of Family Studies and Human Development (FSHD) at the University of Arizona, passed away on January 31, 2023. Dr. Butler was born on October 3, 1963 in Wi...

Depuis le célèbre article de Merleau-Ponty, « De Mauss à Claude Lévi-Strauss », la manière dont on évalue le rapport entre ces deux auteurs détermine ou exprime autant d’interprétations historiques du structuralisme et de choix théoriques ou philosophiques quant aux sciences sociales. Cette filiation se voulait une critique: être fidèle à la découverte de Mauss, celle du caractère central de la réciprocité dans la vie sociale, imposait de dépasser la sociologie vers une sémiologie générale. Cet article s’efforce de (...) montrer qu’il ne s’agit pas là, contrairement à l’interprétation subtile qu’en fit Merleau-Ponty, de faire de la réalité sociale un système de points de vue substituables ou de mouvements corrélés de sub-jectivation, mais de montrer que ce sont les « valeurs » qui, du fait de leur nature, de leur ontologie, doivent nécessairement circuler entre plusieurs points de vue exclusifs et complémentaires. Il revisite la célèbre critique de Lévi-Strauss à Mauss sur l’explication de l’obligation de donner par une « force des choses », et replace l’apport de l’anthropologie structurale dans la philosophie de l’esprit contemporaine, là où elle se confronte aux questions ouvertes par la physique sur l’ontologie des objets quantiques. (shrink)

This paper discusses Marcel Mauss's paper on body techniques. It argues that Mauss's account of the acquisition of bodily capacities and deportments makes it unnecessary to think of the body as any kind of unity, for example, by opposing it to 'mind' or 'spirit', which have their own techniques.

The first intention of this article is to show, with some essays of Marcel Mauss, how his way of studying cultural facts anticipates the structural analysis method in anthropology.The concept of "fait social total" is confronted with the concept of structure as developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, so that we could see the similarities and the distinctions.As well as reconstructing a decisive period of the history of structuralism within the French philosophical and sociological tradition, this article seeks to show the (...) elements of Mauss1s contribution to structuralist anthropology and in a more general why his contribution to the epistemology of the social sciences. (shrink)

Since the early 1970s, Marcel Mauss’s Essai sur le Don, translated into English as The Gift in 1954, has been a standard reference in the social science and bioethical literature on the use of human body parts and substances for medical and research purposes. At that time, three social scientists—political scientist Richard Titmuss in the United Kingdom and sociologist Renée C. Fox working with historian Judith Swazey in the United States—had the idea of using this concept to highlight the (...) fundamental structure of the biomedical practices they were studying, respectively, blood donation, and hemodialysis and organ transplantation. The fact that these first applications of Mauss’s essay should emerge in English- rather than in French-speaking countries raises the question of what the translation of the essay, and notably of the word don as gift, may have to do with this fact. Reading Mauss in translation undoubtedly inspired a seminal approach to interpreting medical and research practices based on bodily giving. This article posits that something may have also been lost: a much broader concept of giving with unquestionable links to the Durkheimian concept of solidarity, which Mauss conceptualizes not only as an obligation but also as a liberty to give. (shrink)

‘The Gift’ is the English title of a small book first published in French in 1925 by sociologist Marcel Mauss, which catalyzed an ongoing debate linked to a wide range of scholarship. Mauss’s gift theory included the Māori example of the ‘hau of the gift’ which Mauss explained as a spiritual force, seeking to return to its original owner or place of origin. This article brings a critical Māori perspective to Mauss’ notion of the hau of (...) the gift, in an indigenous philosophical response to Eurocentric social science that combines critical discourse analysis with Kaupapa Māori theory and principles of research. The paper introduces Mauss’ arguments about gifting, and the role of hau in those arguments, before turning to a close examination of the concept of ‘hau’ as presented in the original Māori letters, the primary data used by Elsdon Best to write his anthropological articles, from which Mauss developed his ideas about hau. These letters, which sparked the whole debate, are material artefacts of the cross-cultural educational relationship between Tamati Ranapiri as teacher, and Elsdon Best as student. Common-sense Māori readings of Ranapiri find no mystery in what he wrote about hau, but reinforce the significance of his correspondence, from the perspective of Kaupapa Māori versions of the history of Māori education. (shrink)