Chapter 4: The intransigent context: glimpses at the history of a problem
The problem the title refers to has to do with what has been called “institutional transfer”. This expression and the largely equivalent “legal transplant”, “institutional imitation”, and so on, mean the reproduction of an institutional pattern in a context different from the one in which that pattern has been generated. I shall not say more about this. A reassessment of the “institutional transfer” issue – let alone a fresh analytical discussion of this practice – is not my objective. Instead I would like to first identify three facets of the word “context” that are particularly relevant here: 1. Context denotes an object of undetermined extension. As we frequently learn in discussions, there is always a “broader context”. Social anthropologists are perhaps the most aware of this. Their contexts are often very capacious. In a passage I will come back to later in this chapter, Margaret Mead prescribes that practices and beliefs “be evaluated in context”; and she equates context with “culture” as comprising such different constituents like “the system of technology”, “the way of preparing or eating food “, the “method of electing a prime minister” or of “hushing a child to sleep”. The contexts we will be dealing with are no less varied than that (World Federation for Mental Health, 1953: 12–13).
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.