Political Crossfire Forums

[social]

The word culture, derived from the Latin word colure, is often used to distinguish between the different ways of life that groups of people share. Thus we often describe, with adulation or disparagement, German culture, American culture, or British culture, with the assumption that different nationalities produce different cultures. In a separate but related sense, culture is used to describe people who have an acquaintance with the arts, humanities and general intellectual and academic life. Cultured people, as they are called, share a privileged position as regards social status, and are often, though not always, revered for their intelligence and knowledge.

Yet the term culture, said to be one of three most complicated terms in the English language, is as widely contested in literary and cultural theory as it is used in contemporary society. If culture is, as has been suggested above, a description of some type of human social phenomena, or of some type of human disposition, what form does it take, and in what way is it spatially and temporally produced? How, if indeed, does culture differ from social interaction? Is culture contingent on time, or do time and space depend on culture? Does culture form thought, or is thought formed by culture?

These are just some of the questions that have been bothering me for the last few months. I’ve written a few essays on culture and multiculture, and have read what I believe are the key texts aggregating that field. Yet I’m still not convinced of any clear definition of the term, which makes any attempt to address these problems quite simply fruitless. Clearly, the term has many uses, and living in an English speaking country I’ve become aware of some of them. But I'm also aware of the fact that there many different uses of the term in different languages, and in different countries, some of which, I’m led to believe, contradict others, while others share similarities.

What do you guys/girls think? What is culture?

[evilmonkey0013]

Culture, according to me, are the beliefs, traditions, and customs of a group of people

[Ch33kY]

According to the voters of this forum, 36% believe that American culture is superior - Thread.

Culture is made up of values and social norms. It is the way the inhabitants of a particular area worship the land in essence their daily life. Culture is the way people cultivate the land.

Culture and Nature are 2 of the hardest words to define in the English language. Largely because they are completely open to interpretation.

[social]

Ch33kY wrote: According to the voters of this forum, 36% believe that American culture is superior - Thread.

Culture is made up of values and social norms. It is the way the inhabitants of a particular area worship the land in essence their daily life. Culture is the way people cultivate the land.

Culture and Nature are 2 of the hardest words to define in the English language. Largely because they are completely open to interpretation.

Yes, I've read Eagleton's The Idea of Culture (I'm guessing that's where you got the link between culture and nature, since Eagleton was the first to point it out, as far as I'm aware).

Unfortunately I'm less interested in culture's various semantic shifts, and more concerned with what culture actually is. To say a way of life or the expression of social norms is, for me, unsatisfactory, since it does little to explain culture. It merely posits that culture is something everyone has, without giving much thought to the rules - if any - that govern culture, or to the process by which it is - if indeed it is - temporally and spatially produced.

It's like an explorer trying to explain a bizarre and outlandish society by saying everyone has a society, to which the keen observer will obviously ask: What is a society? Applying this analogy to the classic definition of culture (i.e. a way of life), you quickly realise how little you actually now about the term, and - perhaps more importantly - about what it seeks to describe and explain.

[Sailor Moon]

I dont agree with "culture" being equated to some higher form of social standing. Thats preposterous. Someone COULD be well cultured, i.e. know alot about alot of different cultures, or they could be "well cultured" to just one.

I personally prefer to know alot about many different cultures, but my heritage is Scottish, German, and Irish. So, essentially, I was technically born that way. My dad was a republican, while mom was more of an independant. Both of them had good work ethics, and both were extroverted, and outgoing. There were some major differences, in the way they were raised, etc, that showed up in my childhood. Dad wasnt allowed to spank me and my sister. Only mom was. I share that "family culture" now with my own child. No men are allowed to spank my kid. Culture is a broad term.

Of course, someone who was born to a very "thoroughbred" family, might know alot about his own culture, and very little about any other. That doesnt make him less intelligent than I am. In fact, this is GREAT for people like me. I learn alot from people like that. Mostly I learn how to conform to their traditions, if temporarily..

I think its good to know your heritage. Heritage is culture. History is culture. Art tells stories on culture, as do books.

I have no qualms with the ideas of different cultures.

[Ch33kY]

social wrote: Ch33kY wrote: According to the voters of this forum, 36% believe that American culture is superior - Thread.

Culture is made up of values and social norms. It is the way the inhabitants of a particular area worship the land in essence their daily life. Culture is the way people cultivate the land.

Culture and Nature are 2 of the hardest words to define in the English language. Largely because they are completely open to interpretation.

Yes, I've read Eagleton's The Idea of Culture (I'm guessing that's where you got the link between culture and nature, since Eagleton was the first to point it out, as far as I'm aware).

Unfortunately I'm less interested in culture's various semantic shifts, and more concerned with what culture actually is. To say a way of life or the expression of social norms is, for me, unsatisfactory, since it does little to explain culture. It merely posits that culture is something everyone has, without giving much thought to the rules - if any - that govern culture, or to the process by which it is - if indeed it is - temporally and spatially produced.

It's like an explorer trying to explain a bizarre and outlandish society by saying everyone has a society, to which the keen observer will obviously ask: What is a society? Applying this analogy to the classic definition of culture (i.e. a way of life), you quickly realise how little you actually now about the term, and - perhaps more importantly - about what it seeks to describe and explain.

I just finished a course on Culture Studies. Basically and yes, we did study Eagleton's work.

I'm interested in your question, and for a serious, lenghtier post would have to think about it a little more. It goes deep when thinking about it philisophically.

[social]

Sailor Moon wrote: I dont agree with "culture" being equated to some higher form of social standing. Thats preposterous. Someone COULD be well cultured, i.e. know alot about alot of different cultures, or they could be "well cultured" to just one.

I personally prefer to know alot about many different cultures, but my heritage is Scottish, German, and Irish. So, essentially, I was technically born that way. My dad was a republican, while mom was more of an independant. Both of them had good work ethics, and both were extroverted, and outgoing. There were some major differences, in the way they were raised, etc, that showed up in my childhood. Dad wasnt allowed to spank me and my sister. Only mom was. I share that "family culture" now with my own child. No men are allowed to spank my kid. Culture is a broad term.

Of course, someone who was born to a very "thoroughbred" family, might know alot about his own culture, and very little about any other. That doesnt make him less intelligent than I am. In fact, this is GREAT for people like me. I learn alot from people like that. Mostly I learn how to conform to their traditions, if temporarily..

I think its good to know your heritage. Heritage is culture. History is culture. Art tells stories on culture, as do books.

I have no qualms with the ideas of different cultures.

I agree with all of that. Though I come from a multicultred background (half Irish, half South African, and through my South African heritage, half English and half dutch), I still don't view people from one nation as, neccesarily, people with only one culture, or, if they are part of only one national or local/regional culture, as 'cultural inferiors'. In fact, pretty much the only thing that pisses me off, as far as cultural identity is concerned, is cultural prejudice, the belief that one culture is superior to another.

[social]

Ch33kY wrote: social wrote: Ch33kY wrote: According to the voters of this forum, 36% believe that American culture is superior - Thread.

Culture is made up of values and social norms. It is the way the inhabitants of a particular area worship the land in essence their daily life. Culture is the way people cultivate the land.

Culture and Nature are 2 of the hardest words to define in the English language. Largely because they are completely open to interpretation.

Yes, I've read Eagleton's The Idea of Culture (I'm guessing that's where you got the link between culture and nature, since Eagleton was the first to point it out, as far as I'm aware).

Unfortunately I'm less interested in culture's various semantic shifts, and more concerned with what culture actually is. To say a way of life or the expression of social norms is, for me, unsatisfactory, since it does little to explain culture. It merely posits that culture is something everyone has, without giving much thought to the rules - if any - that govern culture, or to the process by which it is - if indeed it is - temporally and spatially produced.

It's like an explorer trying to explain a bizarre and outlandish society by saying everyone has a society, to which the keen observer will obviously ask: What is a society? Applying this analogy to the classic definition of culture (i.e. a way of life), you quickly realise how little you actually now about the term, and - perhaps more importantly - about what it seeks to describe and explain.

I just finished a course on Culture Studies. Basically and yes, we did study Eagleton's work.

I'm interested in your question, and for a serious, lenghtier post would have to think about it a little more. It goes deep when thinking about it philisophically.

It's, as a member of this forum once said, hella deep!

[jawsome]

i believe "culture" can only correctly be defined as the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals.


woowee, that's a mouthful.

[social]

jawsome wrote: i believe "culture" can only correctly be defined as the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals.


woowee, that's a mouthful.

From which dictionary did you get procure that definition? :wink:

Only joking, I've just become dissatisfied with, in all its forms and variations, the culture 'as a way of life' definition. As I said in a previous post, it does little to explain what culture actually is. Defining culture as the "totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" (dictionary.com) or, as in your case, "the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals", it gives little thought to the rules that govern those (assumed) behaviour patterns and shared methods of social interactions, or to the complexity in defining them or even using them in any meaningful sense as basis from which to conduct cultural studies.

As far as I'm concerned, cultural studies in its most complete sense suffers from a certain lack of roots, as regards its theoretical and intellectual foundations. It relies on the 'way of life' definition as a fish relies on water, yet its conclusions are constantly undermined by the limits of the term's explanatory power, and the assumptions which it imposes on human behaviour, thought, social interaction and relations. To put it more simply than I have thus far, cultural studies is a school without a teacher, a human without a mind, a house without a foundation - it is, as the last metaphor suggests, baseless.

[SCC]

Great thread social. Culture is indeed one of the most complicated and relevant subjects in the world.

As far as analyzing another culture without being in it (the explorer scenario you gave) is called etic perspective. It means you looked at what another society does from the stand point and prejudices of your own society, in essence trying to encapsulate all daily functions of that society into your own culture, giving adequate reasons based on your society's cultural norms. This is, in all likelihood then, a superficial understanding.

As far this goes, attempting to understand and to explore the mysticism of other cultures using this way provides inherent difficulties. The rituals and ceremonies of say, the Southeastern Indians, or the Amerindians, might seem bizzare, outlandish, and even irrational until viewed against their background or belief. It's difficult to comprehend the artistic and recreational expression of another culture without understanding its belief system. And that's a problem these days; scholars attempt to classify other cultures without first-hand experience or genuinely acquainting themselves with that culture.

Emic perspective would be the opposite. Going into the culture. Living it. absorbing it and understanding it as a native (which is quite difficult and why Anthropology until the end of the 1800s was mostly "Armchair" Anthropology, with British, French and American academics speculating about other cultures based on descriptions by Vespuci, Cortez, Cabeza de Baca, and those that came after).

Culture that affects how we analyze the quality of society, or rather, how a broadway musical is more important - more cultural - than a hip-hop performance...this is the other meaning of culture (more of a popular one) that doesn't have to do with "culture" as it applies to human societies or anthropology, and yet always pollutes that other meaning in terms of the layman's perspective.

Culture is everything that adheres to how a group of people explains the world around them and naturally includes food, religion, language, clothes, dances, music, art, rituals, trash disposal, farming, hunting...basically everything. Culinary tastes and geography for one thing are intricately interconnected and well, frankly, that's a part of culture.

Culture; tis a beautiful thing...and I do believe I've recently acquired a taste for the culture of the Roma, otherwise known as the gypsies. I'll stop now.

[jawsome]

social wrote: jawsome wrote: i believe "culture" can only correctly be defined as the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals.


woowee, that's a mouthful.

From which dictionary did you get procure that definition? :wink:

Only joking, I've just become dissatisfied with, in all its forms and variations, the culture 'as a way of life' definition. As I said in a previous post, it does little to explain what culture actually is. Defining culture as the "totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" (dictionary.com) or, as in your case, "the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals", it gives little thought to the rules that govern those (assumed) behaviour patterns and shared methods of social interactions, or to the complexity in defining them or even using them in any meaningful sense as basis from which to conduct cultural studies.

As far as I'm concerned, cultural studies in its most complete sense suffers from a certain lack of roots, as regards its theoretical and intellectual foundations. It relies on the 'way of life' definition as a fish relies on water, yet its conclusions are constantly undermined by the limits of the term's explanatory power, and the assumptions which it imposes on human behaviour, thought, social interaction and relations. To put it more simply than I have thus far, cultural studies is a school without a teacher, a human without a mind, a house without a foundation - it is, as the last metaphor suggests, baseless.

well, what do you suggest? :lol:

as far as rules that govern social interaction and such, i don't think it's possible to derive and rules, per se, other than maybe rules that dictate how particular groups of individuals survive and express themselves.

looks like i had nothing to add. :lol:

[social]

SCC wrote: Great thread social. Culture is indeed one of the most complicated and relevant subjects in the world.

As far as analyzing another culture without being in it (the explorer scenario you gave) is called etic perspective. It means you looked at what another society does from the stand point and prejudices of your own society, in essence trying to encapsulate all daily functions of that society into your own culture, giving adequate reasons based on your society's cultural norms. This is, in all likelihood then, a superficial understanding.

As far this goes, attempting to understand and to explore the mysticism of other cultures using this way provides inherent difficulties. The rituals and ceremonies of say, the Southeastern Indians, or the Amerindians, might seem bizzare, outlandish, and even irrational until viewed against their background or belief. It's difficult to comprehend the artistic and recreational expression of another culture without understanding its belief system. And that's a problem these days; scholars attempt to classify other cultures without first-hand experience or genuinely acquainting themselves with that culture.

Emic perspective would be the opposite. Going into the culture. Living it. absorbing it and understanding it as a native (which is quite difficult and why Anthropology until the end of the 1800s was mostly "Armchair" Anthropology, with British, French and American academics speculating about other cultures based on descriptions by Vespuci, Cortez, Cabeza de Baca, and those that came after).

Culture that affects how we analyze the quality of society, or rather, how a broadway musical is more important - more cultural - than a hip-hop performance...this is the other meaning of culture (more of a popular one) that doesn't have to do with "culture" as it applies to human societies or anthropology, and yet always pollutes that other meaning in terms of the layman's perspective.

Culture is everything that adheres to how a group of people explains the world around them and naturally includes food, religion, language, clothes, dances, music, art, rituals, trash disposal, farming, hunting...basically everything. Culinary tastes and geography for one thing are intricately interconnected and well, frankly, that's a part of culture.

Culture; tis a beautiful thing...and I do believe I've recently acquired a taste for the culture of the Roma, otherwise known as the gypsies. I'll stop now.

Excellent post. :-D Correct me if I'm wrong, or shout out if I'm being extraordinarily obvious, but am I right in thinking you've studied anthropology?

I attended an anthropology lecture not long back on the limits of the very armchair anthropology you describe, which used Geertz's semiotics approach as an alternative. While I have a few reservations about semiotics in general, in my humble opinion Geertz's alternative seemed to me a reasonable approach to studying culture: An analysis of culture based on the relations between different social and cultural practices is a particularly apt approach to studying other societies, for less emphasis is put on the anthropologist's interpetation of the single social and cultural practices that take place, but rather, on how these practices, diverse as they are, relate to one another, and how they form part of wider structure.

It's worth mentioning I have absolutely no idea where this approach fits into the etic-emic paradigm you've described in your post, or whether indeed a newer, more accurate model has since outdated it.

[social]

jawsome wrote: social wrote: jawsome wrote: i believe "culture" can only correctly be defined as the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals.


woowee, that's a mouthful.

From which dictionary did you get procure that definition? :wink:

Only joking, I've just become dissatisfied with, in all its forms and variations, the culture 'as a way of life' definition. As I said in a previous post, it does little to explain what culture actually is. Defining culture as the "totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought" (dictionary.com) or, as in your case, "the sum total (aggregate) of a shared set of methods of social interactions amongst a group of individuals", it gives little thought to the rules that govern those (assumed) behaviour patterns and shared methods of social interactions, or to the complexity in defining them or even using them in any meaningful sense as basis from which to conduct cultural studies.

As far as I'm concerned, cultural studies in its most complete sense suffers from a certain lack of roots, as regards its theoretical and intellectual foundations. It relies on the 'way of life' definition as a fish relies on water, yet its conclusions are constantly undermined by the limits of the term's explanatory power, and the assumptions which it imposes on human behaviour, thought, social interaction and relations. To put it more simply than I have thus far, cultural studies is a school without a teacher, a human without a mind, a house without a foundation - it is, as the last metaphor suggests, baseless.

well, what do you suggest? :lol:

as far as rules that govern social interaction and such, i don't think it's possible to derive and rules, per se, other than maybe rules that dictate how particular groups of individuals survive and express themselves.

looks like i had nothing to add. :lol:

I suggest nothing, as I'm still unaware of what culture actually is (which is why I started this post).

It's not that you have nothing to add, or that what you've added has, in any way, been inadequate (it is, as a matter of fact, widely accepted - and particularly useful to boot when discussing culture generally). I'm just too god damn pedantic to accept any thing other than a revolutionary restrucuring of the idea of culture!

[SCC]

Quote: Excellent post. Correct me if I'm wrong, or shout out if I'm being extraordinarily obvious, but am I right in thinking you've studied anthropology?

I attended an anthropology lecture not long back on the limits of the very armchair anthropology you describe, which used Geertz's semiotics approach as an alternative. While I have a few reservations about semiotics in general, in my humble opinion Geertz's alternative seemed to me a reasonable approach to studying culture: An analysis of culture based on the relations between different social and cultural practices is a particularly apt approach to studying other societies, for less emphasis is put on the anthropologist's interpetation of the single social and cultural practices that take place, but rather, on how these practices, diverse as they are, relate to one another, and how they form part of wider structure.

It's worth mentioning I have absolutely no idea where this approach fits into the etic-emic paradigm you've described in your post, or whether indeed a newer, more accurate model has since outdated it.

Actually, I haven't studied anthropology. fascinating subject though, and not one i know too much about.

Anyway, the problem with armchair anthropology was that it basically reduced culture to seperable traits, which were collected by missionaries, early explorers, traders and then collected and "interpreted"
by armchair anthropologists much like how paleontologists or geologists ect. collect data for scientific observations. Grand catalogues of these items were used to chart the stages of the human cultural development under an assumption that some traits were representative of earlier or more "primitive" historical periods. This view ultimately rested on a racial theory that these progressively arranged cultural differences were attributable to unequal genetic propensities and endowments among peoples. Of course these were nineteenth century, amateur researchers who were fortnate enough to have the financial capacities and leisure time required to could pursue such academic interests from the comforts of home.

I completely agree with what you said about Geertz's approach. Personally, I like to think of culture like the magnetism in physics - it can't be explained, at best, its effects can be measured, predicted, and observed. And if we ask "why", well, then we enter the Aristotelian "self-evident principles," which like armchair anthropology explains everything through prejudice and inehrent biases of humanity. Likewise, culture is best explained relative to the effects it has on the select society that contains it(like you said).

It's not possible to completely purge oneself of inherent cultural prejudice imho. Euclidean geometry for example, doesn't work when applied to anything other than two dimensional plane, yet people are incapable of imagining the universe except in that context.(We think of light rays as a straight line ect.) And even when we imagine an atom, we think of it as a "planetary model." This tells me that everything is bounded by cultural bias, and given the innumerable technological devices that are emerging(in particular, the Internet), the capacity for armchair anthropology type thinking is inevitable.

[Cato]

The problem is philosophical, not technical. Get your head out of technical considerations. You can't mathematize a praxis. That's right, culture is a praxis, a motion, and can therefore be understood through logic; every motion has a source.

Let's start here: there is nothingness (no place like the beginning in which to start). Now, there is a lone human mind without sense-perception suspended in the void. Without sense-perception this mind here cannot develop or exude culture because it cannot learn it (let us assume it is learned). So, now let there be two human minds that can only perceive each other. Well, this does us little good because these minds have no common experiences to communicate (nothing to communicate, so no means by which to do so). So, now let us put these human minds in a physical world, in physical bodies, with physical problems to overcome. Ah, now these two minds can communicate; they now have common experiences which to communicate, and a reason to develop communication (mutual benefit). They communicate so that they can work together toward solving the problems presented by the physical world they now find themselves in.

Next consideration: how does culture manifest itself? Well, let it be clearly stated that the physical world these minds now occupy has set rules such as gravity and what not. Also, their physical bodies have such set rules too: eyes through which to see, mouths through which to speak, and all the various mechanics involved in the dual functions of perception and communication. So, the way they communicate and perceive communication is based on the set rules just mentioned. So, the way in which an individual communicates is based on the way through which he communicates. So, culture will center around these abilities. When mind A understands mind B, she does so through perceiving B's various mechanical motions. But what is understanding created from? Communication, it would seem.

So, it seems likely that culture is the product of a response to physical realities, and that It comes from a mutual effort to solve the problems presented by these physical realities. To solve these problems, a common understanding is required. Culture is this common understanding. It becomes more and more elaborate as time progresses because humans have memories in which to store cultural data, and leave artifacts which preserve that data in palpable material form.

The way we communicate isn't limited to language, but to ethos and pathos, that is, to imagery and commonality. So, culture is communication not only between contemporaries, but between contemporaries and their predecessors. The artifacts left behind (language, institutions, techne) reverberate throughout the history of a culture, and bind it together through time and space. When two cultures meet, it can be thought of as the meeting of our two minds: two separate entities that must find a way to communicate. In this labour to create a common understanding between cultures, a sort of synthesis occurs.

I can further postulate that culture moves through cargo artifacts such as books, art, and technology. When St. Paul laid out the ground-work for modern Christianity, he did so through letters which belonged to his various communities. These letters were the center of the religion in these communities, and are key pillars in Christianity today. It is through the exchange of cultural artifacts, and an attempt to reach a common understanding that an exchange of cultural data occurs.

I believe I addressed my ideas on the metamorphoses of cultures in a post long ago, but my basic thoughts on the matter are that cultures synthesize, and the notions and feelings generated by artifacts actually change over time. So, a culture must be continually reinventing itself in light of contemporary issues, and it redefines the significance of its artifacts at the same time. The cultures that are most stable are those with written dogmas, such as the Torah, but even these are subject to change. A good example of change in a culture pivoting around an artifact would be the notion that the Bible is figurative (even those parts of it historical). Modern theists can't justify an ancient Yahweh, and so they dress up an ancient war god in the costume of a figurative creation meant to teach a lesson about the contemporary omniscient all-loving god. So, cultures change and redefine their artifacts to suit their purposes. Hence, culture is a praxis; it is a continual motion generated out of the necessities of a dynamic and ever changing environment. It is the essence of communication between contemporaries and predecessors in order to solve problems, and it is grounded and defined by artifacts: an amalgamation of past efforts, a homogeneous collection of useful methods, techniques, and styles. At any rate, the only thing constant in a culture is change (but Ovid will live forever).

Well, this is a maundering piece, isn't it... Eh, that's just my style...