Talk:Cultural determinism

Primary concerns

I am afraid that this article has an inherent drawback. Economy is a term that encompasses a certain class of social behavior. Culture is a term to encompass everything. Therefore while it is reasonable to speak about "economic determinism", to speak about "cultural determinism" is meaningless without clearly defining what exactly defines what. For example, it is reasonable to speak of cultural determinism with respect to individual, i.e., how culture (however vague the term might be) influences on person's behavior, sice one may clearly separate an individual from society. But when speaking that "culture" influences "political arrangements" one assumes that "politics" is something not cultural. Politics is part of culture. And one may as well argue that "politics influences culture".

So, before undertaking the endeavor of this article, please define your terms. Otherwise it will be a kind of "pseudoscience" or tautology or a list of quotations.

Also, please do not forget that the article is about a term. Who of notable persons used or coined the term? How did this person use the term? If you just delve into ancient greeks, then it will be a personal essay that tries to introduce the term taht encompasses certain observations. Mikkalai 23:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comments don't reflect very good reading on the subject. Cultural determinism is a term applied to the work of, for example. Margaret Meade who stated "At the time, Mead concluded that 'all personality traits that we label masculine or feminine are as lightly linked to sex as are the clothing, the manners and the form of head-dress that a society at a given period assigns to either sex'."

Please have some clue about what you are talking about before attacking an article. Stirling Newberry 00:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that your knee-jerk reaction does not reflect the current artricle. If you are so educated, please tell me in what works Margaret Meade used the term "cultural determinism". Also, are you saying that "personality traits that we label masculine or feminine" are not part of the human culture? Mikkalai 02:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't have to have "a good reading of the subject". The current article is supposed to deliver it for me. Moreover, I'd expect an answer to my concerns, not to my level of intelligence. Mikkalai 02:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC me. Stirling Newberry 02:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A am not that obsessed with "truth". I am not saying that the article does not make sense. I am saying that it is not knit sufficiently tightly for encyclopedia. As you mentioned, I am not an expert in the issue. I tried to speak from the position of a layman's common sense. If I could improve the text, I'd have already done this. Unfortunately I can only express my concerns. If you read this as a moron's babble, fine with me. Mikkalai 02:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware this page hasn't been touched in a while but the initial paragraph really needs revision, specifically in regards to the differentiation between 'environment' in the physical sense and in the societal sense, as well as the aforementioned lack of sources for the term in academic use. ScorpionSquadron (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)