Back to Search
Start Over
DISCUSSION.
- Source :
- Rural Sociology; 6/1/53, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p134-137, 4p
- Publication Year :
- 1953
-
Abstract
- The article presents a restudy of Tepoztlán culture and criticizes the folk-urban hypothesis. Certainly there are phenomena that represent social disorganization; but the term has been used so commonly for social reorganization that perhaps it should be abolished. The study of man has demonstrated few things more clearly than the universality of socio-cultural change. Change need not be confused with the idea of progress, but neither should it always be labeled "disorganization." Both in this paper and in his major work, Sociologist Lewis Writh has presented us with many provocative ideas. Although one cannot concede that he has given final answers on all points, he has made constructive suggestions which represent important contributions to anthropology and, in at least some degree, to sociology. Lewis suggests that Robert Redfield's earlier study of Tepoztlán was directed primarily toward testing the folk concept rather than at producing a reasonably complete ethnography. This seems a legitimate comment; but Lewis's assertion, at least by implication, that his book is an attempt at a complete ethnography approaches correctness only if his work is read in connection with Redfield's. Even so, a complete study of Tepoztlán material culture has yet to be published.
- Subjects :
- SOCIAL change
URBANIZATION
SOCIAL history
SOCIOLOGISTS
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 00360112
- Volume :
- 18
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Rural Sociology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 13341460