The assumption of culture as an 'integrated-closed' system, often associated with early functionalist and structural-functionalist approaches in anthropology, posits that cultures are internally coherent, self-contained, and relatively static entities where all parts (institutions, beliefs, practices) function harmoniously to maintain the whole. While this perspective offered valuable insights into social cohesion, it presents significant drawbacks when applied to understanding contemporary society.

Drawbacks of the 'Integrated-Closed' System Assumption:

1. Oversimplification and Lack of Internal Diversity: This assumption tends to homogenize cultures, overlooking internal variations, subcultures, dissenting voices, and individual agency. Contemporary societies are rarely monolithic; they are characterized by diverse social groups, conflicting interests, and varying interpretations of cultural norms. A 'closed system' view fails to account for this rich internal complexity and the dynamic interplay of different cultural expressions within a single society.

2. Inability to Account for Change and Innovation: If culture is a perfectly integrated system, change is often viewed as disruptive or external. This perspective struggles to explain endogenous cultural evolution, innovation, and adaptation. Contemporary societies are constantly evolving due to technological advancements, globalization, social movements, and internal pressures. A 'closed system' model cannot adequately explain how cultures transform, adapt, or even resist change from within.

3. Neglect of External Influences and Globalization: In today's interconnected world, no culture is truly 'closed.' The assumption ignores the profound impact of globalization, colonialism, migration, media, and global economic systems on local cultures. Cultures are constantly interacting, borrowing, adapting, and hybridizing. Viewing them as isolated entities fails to capture the realities of cultural diffusion, transnationalism, and the formation of global cultural flows.

4. Masking of Power Dynamics and Inequality: The idea of a harmonious, integrated system can obscure internal power imbalances, social inequalities, and forms of oppression. It may present a picture of consensus where, in reality, certain groups (e.g., dominant classes, genders, ethnicities) benefit more from the existing cultural structure than others. Critical approaches, such as those from political economy or feminist anthropology, highlight how culture can be a site of struggle and contestation, rather than just seamless integration.

5. Ethnocentric Bias: This perspective can inadvertently reinforce an ethnocentric view, where 'other' cultures are seen as exotic, bounded units, distinct from the 'modern' and 'complex' West. It can perpetuate the idea of 'primitive' societies as unchanging and perfectly adapted, contrasting them with the supposedly fragmented nature of modern societies.

6. Methodological Limitations: Studying culture as a closed system can lead to methodological biases, where anthropologists might selectively focus on elements that support the idea of integration while downplaying or ignoring contradictory evidence. It can also hinder comparative analysis by treating each culture as an incomparable, unique whole.

In conclusion, while the 'integrated-closed' system model provided a foundational understanding of cultural coherence, its limitations are particularly evident in the context of contemporary, globalized societies. A more nuanced approach recognizes cultures as dynamic, porous, contested, and constantly interacting systems, shaped by both internal dynamics and external forces, and characterized by diversity and change rather than static harmony and stasis.