During the discussion of Ruth Benedict’s reading, the class had a rush of agreement that they had issues with what Ruth was getting at. Some students felt as though she had spots within her research that spoke beautifully and others that left gaping holes of information. They conceded that they did enjoy her writing and the flow that she kept within the article. Benedict’s writing style showed her ideals of describing the culture’s behavior without judgment or bias. This refusal of bias fueled her future works in racism and beliefs during wartime. Her theoretical understandings have progressed subtly through Benedict’s research from this article and Chrysanthemum, but her execution of knowledge must be rescaled. Looking back into Psychological Types in the Cultures of the Southwest, Benedict analyzed the culture and personality theory in an beginning execution. She argued how the personality of a culture equally defines and is defined by the individuals within …show more content…
In The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Benedict reiterated her ideology that all aspects of a given culture are thought to reflect its distinct configuration (Moberg, 2013: 158). She extended the personality structure to a culture that was in the influence of war- and thus in a state which enacted morality. She analyzed the national character of Japan in its loyalty despite the pressures and stigmas pushed upon it during and after the war. Her analytical understanding of the theory shined whereas her resource support still showed fallacies. In focusing on the importance of culture as its defined entity, Benedict faced criticisms by scholars on her inaccuracies within the research similar to the discussion’s arguments (McGee and Warms, 2012: 200). Her research faltered with rebounding to the theory instead of exploring what other qualities the situation