Bibliography

@article{brozi_philosophical_1992,

title = {Philosophical Premises of Functional Anthropology},

author = {Krzysztof J Brozi},

doi = {10.1177/004839319202200304},

issn = {0048-3931},

year  = {1992},

date = {1992-01-01},

journal = {Philosophy of the Social Sciences},

volume = {22},

number = {3},

pages = {357--369},

abstract = {The philosophical roots of Malinowski's functionalism are in the academic circles of Krakow, where three figures seem to have exerted a particularly strong influence: Pawlicki, Straszewski, and Heinrich. The predominant trend in philosophy at that time was empiriocriticism, as developed by Mach and Avenarius. Also important were F. A. Lange's interpretation of Marburg neo-Kantianism. It should be noted that the historical philosophy field was extremely broad and diverse. Functionalism, a philosophically open concept, cannot be subordinated to any one philosophical system, although the "openness" of functionalism is not absolute but complemented by its "closedness" to certain other philosophies. Praxism pervades functionalist theory and even creates its foundation. Malinowski approach is entirely scientific, but functionalism is never just empirical. Malinowski realized that pure experience is as impossible as pure reasoning.},

keywords = {functionalism, Poland, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{turner_is_1988,

title = {"Is 'Neofunctionalism' Really Functional?"},

author = {Jonathan H Turner and Alexandra R Maryanski},

doi = {10.2307/201919},

issn = {0735-2751},

year  = {1988},

date = {1988-01-01},

journal = {Sociological Theory},

volume = {6},

number = {1},

pages = {110--121},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{szymanski_malinowski_1972,

title = {Malinowski, Marx and Functionalism},

author = {Al Szymanski},

doi = {10.1177/089692057200200403},

issn = {0047-0384},

year  = {1972},

date = {1972-01-01},

journal = {Insurgent Sociologist},

volume = {2},

number = {4},

pages = {35--43},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{livolsi_teoria_1963,

title = {La teoria funzionalistica nell'opera di B. Malinowski},

author = {Marino Livolsi},

doi = {10.2307/23003005},

issn = {0039-291X},

year  = {1963},

date = {1963-01-01},

journal = {Studi di Sociologia},

volume = {1},

number = {1},

pages = {75--79},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{gregg_dismal_1948,

title = {The Dismal Science of Functionalism},

author = {Dorothy Gregg and Elgin Williams},

doi = {10.2307/663756},

issn = {0002-7294},

year  = {1948},

date = {1948-01-01},

journal = {American Anthropologist},

volume = {50},

number = {4},

pages = {594--611},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{gluckman_malinowskis_1947,

title = {Malinowski's ‘Functional’ Analysis of Social Change},

author = {Max Gluckman},

doi = {10.2307/1156859},

issn = {1750-0184, 0001-9720},

year  = {1947},

date = {1947-01-01},

urldate = {2017-08-10},

journal = {Africa},

volume = {17},

number = {2},

pages = {103--121},

abstract = {Opening ParagraphThere can be no single right analysis of social change. The data are so complex and our tools as yet so crude that we must expect to work with various hypotheses and many types of abstractions. Some will be better instruments of analysis than others, and we must hope that we shall be able to subsume several of these in more comprehensive and consistent bodies of ordered knowledge. I immediately distrust such works as this latest polemic of the late Professor Malinowski's which is written in the strident terms of the one-and-only orthodoxy., RésuméL'ANALYSE ‘FONCTIONNELLE’ DU CHANGEMENT SOCIALCet article évalue le livre posthume du Professeur Malinowski, The Dynamics of Culture Change. L'auteur conclut qu'il vaut très peu. Il critique la condamnation de Malinowski de l'analyse historique, car elle est basée ni sur une évaluation du travail d'historiens reconnus, ni sur une estimation bien considérée de ce que contribue une étude d'histoire à notre connaissance des faits sociaux. Il démontre que la critique malinowskienne de ceux qui considèrent que l'Afrique soit un seul terrain social interdépendent s'est fondeé sur des sens forcés de leurs propos. Ensuite l'auteur essaie de démontrer que l'idée de Malinowski que l'Afrique moderne se compose de trois réalties culturelles n'est que partielle et infructueuse. De plus, cette theorie contient des faiblesses qui mènent inévitablement à ce point de vue. Au mieux, c'est une technique descriptive. Par conséquent Malinowski, incapable de poser des problèmes analytiques, pose sans cesse des problèmes pratiques, en des termes assez naïfs; il semble ignorer les conflits implicites dans la situation, car sa théorie ne peut admettre l'existence du conflit comme une des bases de toute relation sociale.},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{radcliffe-brown_note_1946,

title = {A Note on Functional Anthropology},

author = {A R Radcliffe-Brown},

doi = {10.2307/2792175},

issn = {0025-1496},

year  = {1946},

date = {1946-01-01},

journal = {Man},

volume = {46},

pages = {38--41},

keywords = {functionalism, work about Malinowski},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}