Короткий опис(реферат):
У статті розкрито суть засадничих принципів культурного матеріалізму, його основних понять
і зв’язків між ними, а також виокремлено слабкі місця цього підходу.
Суть розробки, основні результати:
and relationships between them, and the weaknesses of this scientific approach. Cultural materialism, a
golden mean between structural Marxism and dialectical materialism, is based on the idea that social life
and political culture are a response to practical or material problems of the existence. Marvin Harris, who
has extended Marxist three-tier model of culture and developed the new scientific approach, stands on the
strong techno-environmental and techno-economical positions, arguing that each cultural system has three
components: infrastructure (means of production and reproduction), structure (social relations), and superstructure
(ideological relations). Infrastructural changes possess some dominance over structure and
superstructure, and the reverse link (effect) is unlikely. Taking into account the essential aspects of cultural
materialism as a theoretical paradigm, the article focuses on four critical points of this approach. Firstly,
cultural materialists tend to reduce knowledge to science. Both emic and etic approaches are favorable in
the investigation, but the scientists appeal to the observable and positively measurable variables, while
other ones are put out of sight. Secondly, cultural materialism makes a strong emphasis on the etic infrastructure,
and nevertheless, it gives some place for the reverse relation. Still, there is no single example to corroborate the statement that structural or superstructural changes determine the mode of production and
reproduction. Thirdly, Marvin Harris levels the connection between cultural materialism and other social
sciences, placing them to the niche of uncertainty. Finally, it seems that all cultural phenomena do have
some materialist explanation. Here comes a risk of overgeneralization and endless search for some economic
basis, which might be just an accidental state of affairs or a circumstance of the second order. It means
that infrastructure cannot be considered as one-dimensional determinant, as it tends to be rather heterogeneous
set of technological, demographic, economic, and environmental variables.
