can you please have a look at the below argument and analysis and give your inputs.
Also if possible please rate in scale of 6
"Twenty years ago Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is false, and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid. Because they are using the interview-centered method, my team of graduate students working in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures."
In the passage Dr Fields had observed that children were reared by the entire society. The fundamental output of these studies is still valid today and is confirmed by the Dr Karp Studies. However Studies of both these dignified scientists doesn’t match with respect to children psychology.
It is true that Dr Field did not capture the impact of such rearing on children’s mindset. Because at that point of time he dint consider it necessary. Because were given to society for rearing before they had attained their senses i.e. at age of 6 months. Also during their entire lifetime identities of their biological parents was never disclosed to them. Moreover they were made to believe that they were conceived by gods for the benefit of society. Since children never knew who their biological parent was for them society at large was their parent, hence mentality of each child relating to parent was same.
Whereas during Dr Karp’s time there was a remarkable shift in these tradition , society used to start rearing them at the same age, but at age of 15 they were told the truth about their biological parents. Hence each child had a special bonding for their parents. This is the reason Karp’s Interview driven approach had given results showing children had attachment to their biological parents.
With these facts it would be unseemly to call Dr Fields study as invalid. But it would be more appropriate to call Dr Karp’s interview-driven approach as an extension of Dr Field’s Observation-centered approach.
Thanks in Advance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)