Malinowski, one of the representa-tives of anthropological functionalism, is not only a pioneer of scientific ethnography, but also one of the main scholars to use multidisciplinary methodol-ogy in anthropological research. From Malinowski’s course of study, we can see that before he engaged in anthropological study, he had not only studied mathematics, but also excelled in the study of physics. In addition, he was once under the tute-lage of master psychologist Wundt, from whom he learned experimental psychology, and thus, be-came strongly influenced by related psychological theories. In his anthropological research, he not only borrowed relevant theory from the field of psy-chology in the investigation and analysis, but also verified related theories of psychology. In many of his works, there are traces of psychological analy-sis, which became one of the differences between Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, and became an alternative functionalism which differs from that of Brown. In Malinowski’s many works, the use and re-flection of theoretical psychology in Sex and Repres-sion in Savage Society is relatively obvious. In this book, through a long period of fieldwork and relat-ed materials taken from the field, Malinowski uses four parts to give reflections of and research into the relevant psychological theory of Sigmund Freud, and makes a systematic analysis and dis-cussion of sex in the “savage society” and “civi-lized society”. He argues that he does not research sex itself, but researches the sociology of sex, at the same time, giving a response and extended the anthropological view on marriage and family. In the written text, Malinowski first questions Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, He states that the theory of psychoanalysis is basically a doctrine concerning the family life’s impact on the people’s psychology, thus, starting from the family, Malinowski raises two questions and discusses them in the book. In his discussion, Malinowski makes a de-tailed comparison of the patriarchal and matriarchal societies, as well as the relations between children and fathers, mothers and uncles in the upper and lower classes of the two different types of societies. And he believes that boys will have a “Oedipus complex” while girls will have a “Electra com-plex” in the patriarchal society, on the contrary, there will be a hatred to the maternal uncle. In dif-ferent patterns of society, the responsibilities of the father, mother and maternal uncle are different. At the same time, Malinowski divides the children’ s development stage into infancy, babyhood, child-hood and adolescence, so as to explain systemati-cally the formation of different “complexes”, re-vealing in what kind of situation is the complex produced, as well as how “complex” plays a role or is reflected in different social types. In addi-tion, the author also discusses complex in the ma-triarchal society, and explains the process of its formation, as well as the manifestation and func-tion of the re-cognition in the myths, dreams, and other items of the“natives” society. Moreover, he explores the relationship between culture and to-tem. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, argues that culture originates in the totemic feast, but through actual investigation and analysis, Mali-nowski found that “complex” is the result of cul-ture, and instead of complex producing the cul-ture , some complexes originate in the starting point of culture. In different cultural types and different patterns of society, complex is also different. It can be seen that Malinowski has practiced and ex-amined the theory of psychology via fieldwork, and this method is not only an attempt, but also a breakthrough , and provides a precedent for the use of multidisciplinary knowledge in anthropology. It can be said that Malinowski’s research and thought is a path of reflection and critique. But as the two appendices of the book ( the translated version by Li Anzhai ) , V. P. Calverton’s perspective in Modern Anthropology and Class Psy-chology and that of H. D. Lasswell in Malinowski’s Test of a Hypothesis is more different. Calverton discusses the research of Malinowski and the an-thropological research on family and marriage which is similar to Malinowski’ s study from the ac-ademic point of view. He discusses in detail from Morgan to Westermarck, and then to Malinowski. He clearly states Malinowski’s position and analy-zes the reason why there was “absurd” concept or it was not given an objective explanation as much as possible in their theory-that was because of the restriction of “cultural force”. By saying that, he reminds scientific researchers that they should pay attention to the existence of“cultural force”. Lass-well, starting from Malinowski’ s work Sex and Re-pression in Savage Society and Malinowski’s aca-demic training background, believed that anthropo-logical fieldwork can help to correct the mistake of taking a part for the whole, and an anthropologist can provide counterevidence to the hypothesis of experimental social sciences. However, as far as to Malinowski himself, he has not gotten a complete training in psychoanalytic disciplines and has never received any certificate in the field of psychoanaly-sis. His knowledge of psychoanalysis comes from readings books in the fieldwork and some commu-nication with the analysts in the field of psychoa-nalysis, therefore, his psychoanalytic argument is worth pondering. Moreover, Malinowski did not use psychoanalytic methods to do the investigation, or published the original manuscripts, hence, it is somewhat questionable. But no matter Malinowski’s work, or Calverton and Lasswell’s comments, what they provide us are different perspectives and research paths-they are three different paths of reflection and critique. Ma-linowski used field survey data to examine and re-flect on the theory of psychology; he brought psy-chology into anthropological research, and used ma-terials to provide disproof. Calverton’s article, start-ing from the social background of anthropology, de-fined Malinowski’s position in the academic context, meanwhile, he put forward the theory of “cultural force” so as to analyze and interpret why the re-searchers draw such a conclusion. Lasswell, based on a comprehensive discussion on Malinowski’s Sex and Repression in Savage Society, not only made a simple analysis of Malinowski’s academic back-ground, but also gave a reflection on Malinowski’s methods, materials, standards, etc. , meanwhile, he gave an analysis by combining anthropological and psychoanalytic knowledge -he not only men-tioned how Malinowski treated the theory of psy-choanalysis as an anthropologist , but also pointed out how psychoanalysts view Malinowski’s argument and conclusion. This mutual way doubtlessly makes the argument to the same issue more com-prehensive. Although the footholds of the three sides are different, they all share a path of reflec-tion and critique. At the same time, it gives us a kind of revelation, that is, if we want to make a profound grasp of a certain work, we should start from the text itself, the discourse point in the text and its theory, as well as the author’s academic training, theoretical line and social context of the time. Only by this way, can we have a more com-prehensive understanding of the “author” and the text, and have a better understanding of the advan-tage of having a comprehensive perspective and comprehensive disciplinary approach. It is also possible to have a reflection on anthropology, and look into the future of anthropology by reviewing Malinowski’ s Sex and Repression in Savage Socie-ty, and discussing the two appendices of the book.