Patterns of Culture

Benedict’s book is credited for popularizing the term “culture” to a mid-20th-century audience. How is Benedict’s definition of culture relevant today? What, if anything, can be changed or added to her definition of the culture so that it resonates with 21st-century audiences?

What would Patterns of Culture look like if the case studies of the Zuñi, Dobuans, and Kwakiutl were not included in it? Could the book still be considered an anthropological text? If so, why? If not, why not?

Are human rights universal or culturally relative? In what kind of situations would it be difficult to apply a stance of cultural relativism?

Anthropology, as a social science, incorporates both a humanistic and a scientific perspective on the human condition. What aspects of Patterns of Culture are humanistic and what aspects are scientific?

Benedict researched and wrote in the mid-20th century. To what extent is her scholarship a product of her time, and to what extent does it provide new insights for thinking about the human condition?

Benedict’s integrated approach to culture has led to criticisms that she does not account for much change, variation, or conflict within cultures. Is this a valid criticism of her work? Why or why not?

Does Benedict give greater weight to the influence of individuals or the influence of society in her theorization of cultural patterns?

Benedict advocates for incorporating historical analyses in anthropological studies. To what extent does she use a historical perspective in Patterns of Culture? Is it adequate?