Socio-Cultural Process and Psychological Adaptation of the Santal

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

P. C. Ray, the author of this book, was born in January, 1916, in the district of Mymensingh, now in Bangladesh. He obtained his M. Sc. degree in Psychology of the University of Calcutta in 1940 and Certificate in Clinical Psychology of the Institute of Psychology, London, in 1952. He joined the Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India, in 1947 and later became Head of the Psychology Section of the Survey. He is a pioneer in Culture and Personality researches in India engaging himself in inter-cultural testing and Culture and Personality researches for over twenty five years. He was elected President of the First Session of the Eighth All-India Seminar on Conflict and Tension in Contemporary Indian Societies held in Ranchi in 1965. He is an Honorary Life Member of Ranchi Anthropological Association and an Honorary Adviser to the All-India Institute of Parapsychology. His published books are: The Children of Abor and Gallong. The Effect of Culture- contact on the Personality Structure of Two Indian Tribes and The Lodha and Their Spirit-possessed Men in addition to about forty other psycho-anthropological papers.

This monograph deals with culture and personality with special reference to comparative psychological adaptation and psychological position of the Santal and the relevance of the latter to respective socio- cultural contexts. In other words, socio-cultural and psychological adaptations of the Santal having three culture-contact levels have been found out.

As to the historical background of culture and personality, it may be pointed out that in 1931 Sapir¹, collaborated with John Dollard, arranged a seminar on this subject, and since then field-researches have been undertaken by anthropologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists in America. These studies have been considered by the American anthropologists as important contributions to anthropology, and, as a result, culture and personality have been included in the curriculum of anthropology in American universities. Nevertheless, anthropologists in this country, with a very few exceptions like Dr L. P. Vidyarthi2 and Dr S. C. Sinha of the Anthropological Survey of India, have paid very little attention to this new emerging force.

Culture and personality studies were formally recognized in American anthropology in 1936, and in this country in 1957. So, the year 1957 marks an important landmark in the history of anthropology in India. Influenced by the psycho-cultural researches undertaken by the Anthropological Survey of India as early as 1952-53, the then President of the Psychology Section of the fortyfourth Session of the Indian Science Congress held a symposium on culture and personality jointly with the Section of Anthropology. The assembled scientists admitted for the first time that cultural phenomenon required a determinate human being which was the carrier and creator of culture. In that symposium, the author emphasized that a human neonate was a psycho-biological organism and not a person. When it, he added, participated in the culture of its society, it became a person, and the attributes of a person constituted its personality. During this period, culture and personality researches among the tribals came to the forefront, and the initiative was taken by the Psychology Section of the Anthropological Survey of India under the guidance of the author.

Before the author deals with the research methodology as posed in this paper, he wants to clarify some controversial points pertaining to culture as related to personality. It has been accepted in American anthropology that progress in this science depends to a considerable extent upon the continued development of psycho-cultural researches, Social psychological researches in anthropology have been considered as an important branch of cultural anthropology, and 'Culture and Personality' studies have been included in the curriculum of anthropology in American universities. Unfortunately, our anthropologists, with very few exceptions2, have paid little attention to this emerging force.

In order to clear up the underlying factors behind culture and personality, it may be pointed out that older anthropologists viewed culture as an impersonal 'superorganic' tradition and environment comprising the sum total of material and ideal achievements of historical human society. They also hold that cultural phenomena are processes sui generis requiring no explanation from other orders of phenomena as these are discrete processes. On the other hand, there had been a tendency to regard culture realistically, referring to acquired forms of techniques, behaviour, feelings, and thought processes of individuals. Logically, there should not be any conflict between these two views, namely the 'superorganic' approach and the 'realistic' individual approach, if it is realized that two levels of abstractions are dealt in this way. Actual or concrete culture is that state of modification of behaviour and thought processes which are the direct results of education and participation in the life of the community. On the other hand, abstract or ideal culture is an impersonal 'superpsychic aggregate of forms of experience transmitted by human beings and embodied in the sum total of human artifacts, socifacts and mentifacts. In concrete culture, the major emphasis is upon the cultural processes as manifested in the behaviour patterns of individuals within a society; whereas in abstract culture, the emphasis is upon cultural forms and achievements apart from the carrier and creator of culture. It must be remembered that there are purely no cultural phenomena. All cultural phenomena are natural phenomena as modified through human efforts and interactions.

**Contents and Sample Pages**