Cultural Flexibility: Myth and Reality
By Edwin A. Cook
Contents
Introduction
1. The Concept of Flexibility
2. New Guinea
Conclusion
Introduction
J. H. M. Beattie remarked that any sort of description, “...does more
than merely describe; it is also in some degree explanatory”. He further
states that, “...any particular framework of explanation... [must be] ...subject
to continuing revision and reformulation” (1959:49). The purpose of this paper
is to bring together and examine some of the many usages of the term ‘flexible’,
paying particular attention to its recent application in New Guinea.
1. The Concept of Flexibility
In 1950, Embree published an article concerning what he referred to
as the ‘loose’ social structure of Thailand compared with the more “closely
woven social structure” of Japan (1950:182). Later, during the course of
research among the Sinhalese, Ryan and Strauss were struck by the con
cordance of their opinions with those of Embree. Where Embree’s presen
tation was vague, impressionistic and unordered, Ryan and Strauss sought
to bring definitions and clarity. They formed a working definition of structural
‘looseness’ in terms of three variants: the specificity of normative codes, the
This paper was originally presented at the meetings of The American Ethnological
Society in Pittsburgh, March 27-28, 1964. The research upon which this article is based
was carried out under the tenure of a Predoctoral Fellowship MF-11, 543 and Research
Grants M-4895 and M1-04895-02S1, from the National Institutes of Mental Health, United
States Public Health Service.