Symbolic Consensus in a Fang Reformative Cult<sup>1</sup>

Fernández, James W.

doi:10.1525/aa.1965.67.4.02a00030

Cited by 128 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when we attend to where consensus lies in any given population, things become a little less straightforward (see Fernandez, 1965). By way of illustration, in the Tyva Republic, Purzycki found that out of a sample of 82 individuals, people's conceptions of local spirit-masters ranged from creations of nature (n = 32; 39%) and spirits of ancestors (n = 25; 30.5%), to creators of nature (n = 15; 18.3%); and 10 (12.2%) reported "other" without providing an answer (Purzycki, 2012, pp.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Johnson

Cohen

2014

Religion, Brain & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary theorists have explained universals in religion, but no integrative theory exists to explain why multiple aspects of religion vary within and between individuals and groups. We propose how four dimensions of religions -beliefs about nonhuman agents, religious rituals, community structures, and moral concerns and values -may change in response to the fundamental social goals of self-protection, disease avoidance, coalition formation, status seeking, mating and mate retention, and kin care. We review empirical research and provide testable hypotheses, and finally discuss implications of this theoretical framework for the study of evolution and religion.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Johnson

Cohen

2014

Religion, Brain & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More generally, we use culture to explain why different groups behave differently in the same structural situation (compare, for example, the argument of Glazer and Moynihan [1970] to Lieberson [1981] or Bonacich [1976]). Finally, we make the intuitively appealing but theoretically vacuous assumption that culture accounts I0 The problem of cultural "dissensus" or diversity has recently received some explicit theoretical attention (Fernandez, 1965;Stromberg, 1981;Newcomb and Hirsch, 1983;Rosaldo, 1985). However, these advances are partially offset by the vogue for theories of "hegemony" among Marxists and by semiotic approaches which see cultures as codes within which any meaning must be communicated (see Stromberg, 1985 1922]), Weber argued that religious ideas made an independent causal contribution to the economic trajectories of different societies.…”

Section: Cultural Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies

Swidler¹

1986

American Sociological Review

6,230

3,744

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented, but by shaping a repertoire or "tool kit" of habits, skills, and styles from which people construct "strategies of action." Two models of cultural influence are developed, for settled and unsettled cultural periods. In settled periods, culture independently influences action, but only by providing resources from which people can construct diverse lines of action. In unsettled cultural periods, explicit ideologies directly govern action, but structural opportunities for action determine which among competing ideologies survive in the long run. This alternative view of culture offers new opportunities for systematic, differentiated arguments about culture's causal role in shaping action.

show abstract

“…Laws, institutions, monarchs, the invisible hand, rituals, coercion and social contracts are among the explanations for uniform social practices. It is empirically incontestable that under certain conditions it is possible to detect common social action without reference to a unified and commonly accepted cultural system (Dahrendorf 1958;Fernandez 1965;Stromberg 1981).…”

Section: (D): Excluding the Independent Influence Of Other Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries

McSweeney

2009

Organization Studies

160

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National models of social action over-privilege continuity and uniformity. They discount change -which they lack the capacity to explain (other than through exogenous shocks) -and neglect diversity within countries. This paper focuses on the national culture model which it argues requires commitment to illogical arguments and to suppositions which are theoretically and empirically untenable. An evaluation of each, it is argued, points to the existence of, and possibilities for, considerable national diversity and change -not pervasive and enduring national uniformity. Reflecting on the model's rise and fall in anthropology, the paper also provides an outline explanation of its retention within organization studies and speculates about its future within that discipline.In a range of literature each country is said to be characterized by distinctive, pervasive and enduring patterns of practices. The bedrock source of these patterns is either said to be national institutions (Hall and Soskice 2001, for instance) or national culture (Hofstede 2001, for example). This paper focuses on the claim that there is a national cultural imperative, that identifiable national culture is enduring, pervasive and constitutive -a view described here as the national culture model (hereafter 'the model'). It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the critiques of overly determining and unchanging versions of the institutional model and their limited ability to explain behaviour at the organizational level. For these, the reader is referred to the new wave of neoinstitutional literature (Djelic and Quack 2005;Crouch 2005; Streeck and Thelen 2005, for instance; see also Smith et al. 2008).Although once popular in a number of academic disciplines, the model is now employed almost exclusively within the discipline of organization studies and in a small sub-field of psychology -cross-cultural psychology. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the model is unable to explain organizational diversity and change within any one country. The model, it is argued, requires commitment to illogical arguments and to presuppositions that are theoretically and empirically untenable. Each of these is described and analysed. And the logical conclusion in each case, it is argued, points not to a pervasive uniformity, but to the existence of diversity within countries. An adequate theory of social action needs to be able to explain variations over time as well as continuity and variations article title Organization Studies 30(09): 933-957

show abstract

Symbolic Consensus in a Fang Reformative Cult¹

Cited by 128 publications

References 22 publications

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies

Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Symbolic Consensus in a Fang Reformative Cult1

Cited by 128 publications

References 22 publications

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Fundamental social motives and the varieties of religious experience

Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies

Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Symbolic Consensus in a Fang Reformative Cult¹