The assumption from which it is necessary to start is that which defines man as a broad, multidimensional structure, which interacts with an equally divided exo-structure, which maintains a constant process of interchange.
For this reason, it is least restrictive to consider man as an object of analysis laboratory, where the complex endo-psychic structure reacts to stimuli, which are often constructed reflect only a small part of the vast melting pot of the stresses, which occur in the osmotic process that exists between man and the outside world.
It is with specific reference to the latter that we must make a split that divides the exo-structure into two sections. The first is the outside world, seen as linked to the nature world. In this sense, the stimuli that act on those linked to physical, biological, and whatever else is working closely over the structure nature.
The other side of that coin is occupied by what man creates when it enters into relation with his fellows and form groups.
Both “worlds” have to turn their dynamics and processes.
The difference lies in the fact that man perceives the stimuli of the “natural world” as completely unrelated, often facing very difficult problems of understanding and interchange. Because of this, almost always, the players are placed on a high level from which to impose its presumed domain.
The Social World “being generated by man himself is welcomed and valued in different ways. First, the stresses that come from it are received and processed by the person based on an erroneous conviction, it leads them to claim to know about the company to which they belong, often not only that. That is why everyone assumes to understand all aspects of this “social world” and therefore, presumed to be able to manage and guide their action in the right way.
Filed under: Anthropology and Sociology | Tagged: Anthropology, field, intervention, methodology, new, part, research, Sociology, studies, study
