The term “superorganic” was probably first used by the early sociologist Herbert of the time, Alfred Kroeber and Edward Sapir, in the American Anthropologist. The idea of “The superorganic” is associated with Alfred Kroeber, an American anthropologist writing in the first half of the twentieth century. Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly. Peter J. Richerson University of California – Los Angeles. Los Angeles . Dobzhansky’s usage was probably inspired Kroeber and kindred influential social. scientists of his.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Published (Last):||16 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We can call this the lowest level of complexity. If you copy text from this site, please acknowledge the author s and link it back to cec.
This elaboration links humans together into communities and societies. Looking at the relationship between living things and their inorganic components in this way helps us to understand the relationship between culture and persons.
Similarly, do not think of a community, an institution, a society as a human being. Do not think of a dog as a carbon atom or a hydrocarbon molecule. The superorganic is another way of describing —— and understanding —— culture or the socio-cultural system.
Culture and society comprise the third level.
It operates at a higher level of complexity than the organic. Key Words Modules Sociology: The superorgamico level of complexity is composed of living things. All living things, plants and animals, are built up of inorganic elements, mainly hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, plus some trace elements.
If we start with the inorganic, it is the physical universe, all the atoms of elements without life. Human beings are animals, and as such are organic systems.
It may have a life of its own, but its life more resembles an amoeba than a human. They behave, however, in concert with each other, as a system external to individuals —— society.
Culture as the superorganic
Similarly, the dog, if seen as a biological system, operates at a higher complexity than the inorganic elements which comprise it. Knowing the dynamics of how carbon atoms operate, or that combining hydrogen and oxygen can result in a rapid combustion if not an explosion, does not explain how the tree works, with its leaves converting sunlight into energy krofber change water krleber carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon, channels to transfer sap from leaves to root, and so on.
A living entity transcends its inorganic parts. Do not anthropomorphise culture.
There is a parallel, therefore, in the relations between the inorganic and the organic, as between the organic and the superorganic. If you separate the dog or tree into its separate elements, it dies. Humans have thoughts and behaviour. The socio-cultural level, culture or society, therefore is kroebef by humans and transcends humans. The links are symbolic, not genetic as in biological systems.
If you analyse all those parts, in themselves, or even as a collection, they are not living. The arrangement makes them alive.
Those are carried by individuals. They have developed communications between themselves to an elaborate degree, much more sophisticated than other animals.