Victor C. deMunck

From InterSciWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Victor C. deMunck <> - "I could edit and comment as a referee on a set of papers." I hope you are feeling well.

  • 24... Vicious to Virtuous Cycles
  • VicioustoVirtuousCycles

don't mention it. send me the intro if you want.

Panel on Theory 2017

Victor C. de Munck dear friends,

Giovanni and i are putting together a panel on theory--just theory-- for sasci (Society for Anthropological Sciences (SASci). Santa Fe, NM: SCCR, 2005: 42–43. ...rst General Scholarly Meeting of SASci)--I'm recruiting. If any of you are interested lmk. we want to keep it broad to make it inclusive and attract x-cultural, ethnographic, qualitative-quantitative folks, archys and cultural folks about building bridges and  dialogue. 

If interested lmk and send abstract and title soon-- due by the end of this month. ​ Victor​

Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Doug White <> wrote:

   "i could edit and comment as a referee on a set of papers." I hope you are feeling well.
   Yes, I am. I'll take you up on that sometime soon. Thanks. All the best
Jennifer M. McGreevey, SUNY New Paltz
	David Kronenfeld <>,, Victor C. deMunck <>, Giovanni Bennardo <>

June 7 2017

Sorry for the delay.  i'm working with total concentration on two upcoming papers: one on a theory of culture that was revise and resubmit to current anthro. and now i'm immersed in a cross-cultural comparison of courtship processes.  i know of no article--and i've looked quite extensively--that looks at the series of event that constitute courtship where you have autonomous (so-called) mate selection. I can't think of anything else right now.  I would be glad to help with this; i don't need to have my status promoted unless you think it will make me more committed and work harder.  I am not sure exactly what you would want and what the time frame is.  i could edit and comment as a referee on a set of papers.
  • I hope you are feeling well.
  • you've been an inspiration to me.


June 6 2017

dear doug,

I am just writing to inquire about the current status of the handbook and our contribution. Andrey and I have also revised that paper--using the same data base and tables and turned it into a more extended and critical piece questioning the status of romantic love as a cultural universal which I am attaching and asking if it is okay to send this to the journal of evolutionary psychology (EP) -- it is an online journal by todd shackleford a student of david buss. we did this in order to directly address the EP audience that takes this--the cultural universality of romantic love-- as an axiom. --> I also have an interesting cognitive data base (of freelists) that suggest that love and sex are independent categories and that romantic love is an overlap of these and thus a synthesis. a paper i'm working on with david K and another student.

best victor

Virtual anthropology -- Celebrating

HI Doug
This is victor. I was hospitalized for a while b/c of doctor error on a vasectomy. fully healthy for last two months.
The paper is progressing fine.
Now I am living in Lithuania for two years-an nsf grant, research and some teaching--i have good amount of time. 
I have a co-author on this paper; she is doing most of the ethnographic research using ehraf. Should I add include her information (Yes: Doug). I assume so, but just checking.
best wishes

Victor C. de Munck is a Professor in the Anthropology Department at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

Books by Victor C. de Munck

re: Violence topic for Wiley book:

Victor C. de Munck. 2002. Contemporary Issues and Challenges for Comparativists. Anthropological Theory 2(1): 1462-496.

Victor de Munck. 2000. Introduction: Units for Describing and Analyzing Culture and Society]. Ethnology 9(4): 279-292. Abstract: The main problem for ethnologists has been to define and develop adequate and equivalent cultural units for CC comparison. I argue that this is also a problem for ethnographers. I conclude with a brief review ... [of the articles in this special issue].

Victor C. de Munck and Andrey Korotayev. 2000. Cultural Units in Cross-Cultural Research. Ethnology 39/4 (2000): 335–348. (there is no fix to this problem, they argue)

Victor C. de Munck and Andrey Korotayev. 1999. Sexual Equality and Romantic Love: A Reanalysis of Rosenblatt's Study on the Function of Romantic Love. Cross-Cultural Research August 1999 vol. 33 no. 3 265-277. MISSING P 275 PDF in ResearchGate. Abstract:

The authors propose that the importance of romantic love as a basis for marriage will occur only in societies that allow both males and females to give or not give love freely. Based on their belief that sexual attraction or passion is a primary criterion of romantic love, the authors hypothesize that there will be a positive correlation between the importance of romantic love and social indicators of sexual equality. Rosenblatt’s 11-point rating scale of romantic love is used to test this hypothesis. The authors find that societies that allow premarital and extramarital sex for both males and females rate romantic love significantly higher than societies that have a double standard or have strong sanctions against female sexuality out of wedlock. It is concluded that the type of sanction against female sexuality is the critical factor for predicting the cultural importance of romantic love as a basis for marriage.

Cross-Cultural Analysis of Models of Romantic Love Among U.S. Residents, Russians, and Lithuanians. Cross-Cultural Research May 1, 2011 45: 128-154. Victor C. de Munck State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, NY, Note: Original Rosenblatt codes were never published and are no longer available. Andrey Korotayev Moscow State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia Janina de Munck State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, NY Darya Khaltourina Moscow State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia

Abstract: Our goal was to detect and describe a common “core” structure of romantic love and to also discover and explain variations due to cultural or gender differences between three national cultures: the United States, Russia, and Lithuania. Our sample consisted of 262 American males, 362 American females, 166 Russian males, 130 females, 102 Lithuanian males, and 135 Lithuanian females—a total of 1,157 people. Our analysis was derived from (a) a 14-item questionnaire; (b) freelist responses to the question “What do you associate with romantic love?” and (c) interview and focus group data. The questionnaire was devised by employing well-known quotations about romantic love that cover a range of feelings and perceptions of love. Our results showed that there is no overall consensus but there was cross-cultural consensus on five variables: intrusive thinking, happiness; passion; altruism; and improve well-being of partner. In the freelist portion, we also found some significant similarities—particularly the desire to be together was ranked first across all three cultures. However key cultural differences were found. Friendship and comfort love were critical features of romantic love for the U.S. sample, but nonexistent for the Lithuanian and Russian samples. Conversely, the latter two samples saw love as “unreal,” “temporary,” and “a fairytale.” These cultural differences were explored through interviews and shown to serve as different cultural frames used to interpret similar emotional complexes. We suggest that the differences do not affect the evolutionary functions of romantic love and are adaptations to different types of social organizations. The etic-emic approach used in this cross-cultural research provides for a more nuanced, ethnographically sound, and cross-culturally valid description and analysis of the form and function of romantic love cross culturally than does either approach by itself.

Victor C. deMunck <> OBSOLETE: Jennifer M. McGreevey, SUNY New Paltz