Talk: Culture
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
Before 2003?
Be gentle. This is only a stub! (*puts on asbesthos suit*) --Anders Törlind
Culture, as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading. What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other?
We separate Culture from Sciences? I consider Science to be a part of the Culture.
We could say culture refers to those things that exist in some form in every society, but which differ in particular expression from society to society. - TimShell
I would go off sounding like a dictionary to say: 'the pattern of knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends, in part, on the capacity to learn that enables members to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations' or 'the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize a group' or 'to grow in a prepared medium.' (That last one being both off-topic and an interesting restatement of the first.) --PhillipHankins
Should this article become a disambiguation page with links to Culture (biology), Culture (anthropology), Culture (arts and letters), and possibly Culture (fashion)?--NetEsq
- I basically agree with you, although "culture(anthropology) would be too narrow; although the article emphasizes anthropology, it is discussing a concept used by sociologists, critical theorists, and others and in its current structure can accommodate development by people from other disciplines. Maybe culture (concept in social theory)? Slrubenstein
- As an anthropologist by training, I must admit that I am highly biased on this issue. IMHO, culture qua science and social theory is a term of art that is properly the province of anthropology, a term of art which has been borrowed by various other related disciplines. I think most sociologists and critical theorists would agree, but I will let them speak for themselves.
- In any event, I think we are in agreement on the need for a disambiguation page for culture with a link to Culture (biology). What about Culture (arts and letters) and Culture (fashion)? Can we agree that these connotations of culture are sufficiently distinct from culture qua science and social theory to warrant separate articles?--NetEsq
I removed the following section. I do not mean to delete it, but I do think it needs a lot of work before it is reincoprorated into the article. I suggest we work on it here, and then figure out where to put it in the article. I have some more specific comments afterwards.
[Content moved to Culture theory.]
Let me state at the outset that I agree with virtually everything here. My problem is not that I think it is wrong, but that it is ill-suited for an encyclopedia article. That is, although personally I agree with almost if not all of it, I understand that this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal. I think this is a view that emerged especially among anthropologists in the mid twentieth century. Many people, including anthropologists, in the 19th century used the word culture very differently. Many anthropologists by the late 20th century began moving away from this understanding of culture (there are extensive debates in anthropology journals over whether this understanding of culture has any meaning at all). Finally, many non-anthropologists use the term culture in rather different ways. YET, the above is written as if this is "the" meaning of culture. In short, it is written in an argumentative, rather than expository tone. This is conveyed in part through such rhetorical devises as "we have seen" and "let us look" and "it must be realized" -- devices that are usually used to lead people through an argument or convince them -- or to assert a certain authority. Frankly, I think such rhetorical devices are inappropriate to this project.
I think much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular view of culture, and in that highly condensed and historicized form it can be reinserted. Otherwise, it misrepresented the history of the term, and neglects current scholarly debate.
Also, on a side note, to whomever wrote this: please review Wikipedia formatting guidelines so that when you do contribute to articles you do not screw up the format (I am sure the previous screw-up was entirely unintended, I have done similar things myself) Slrubenstein
2003
Once again, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- NetEsq 02:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)~
I was reading an news article the other day that said chimps could be said to have culture -- across Africa, different groups exhibit different behaviours in both feeding habits, grooming and courtship. Some of these (like using tools) gradually spread. -- Tarquin 10:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) (not the one I read, but similar: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/370807.stm )
At http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/chimpculture030102.html there is a similar report but with regard to orangutans. Tannin
PS: I just noticed the article URL - "chimpculture" in an article about orangs. Sigh. --- Tannin
By definition, culture (in the anthropological sense) is a human phenomenon, and the "definitions" of culture used in these news articles is a radical departure from any commonly accepted definition of culture that is used by anthropologists. Absent a peer-reviewed report in a serious scientific journal which harmonizes with these news reports, the news reports should be dismissed as scientifically inaccurate.-- NetEsq 13:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why. These reports quote primatologists, and show that the notion of "culture" applies to other species. As an encyclopedia it's our duty to report emerging theories. Don't be so humanocentric! -- Tarquin 13:25 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
When there is evidence of religion among other primates, a primary component of all anthropological theories of culture, I think it would be worth noting. Until that time, it is scientifically inaccurate to state that any hominid, much less a primate, possesses culture.
Simply put, as an emerging scientific theory, these news reports are on the same par as news reports about creation science. No doubt we could find a whole bunch of credentialed scientists who would be willing to offer half-truths and misleading definitions to suit their own agendas in this regard as well.-- NetEsq 13:37 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
- No, they don't have religion. Which would suggest that they are SMARTER than we are. Do we have any anthropologists on board who can comment on this? -- Tarquin
I have a bachelor of arts in anthropology (cum laude) and I have taken graduate level courses in both primatology and cultural anthropology.
The issue is not one of intelligence; it is one of definition: Only hominids can possess culture, and only hominids which possess culture are considered human. As I said before, religion is a key component of any theory of culture which is commonly accepted among anthropologists. -- NetEsq 13:49 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
- That is a ciruclar definition -- you appear to be saying "culture is what humans have" and "humans are those that have culture". -- Tarquin 13:54 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Be that as it may, that definition is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists: One must meet the biological criteria of being human (i.e, be a hominid) to possess culture. -- NetEsq 14:04 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Then the definition is badly-formed because it makes unnecessary presumptions -- Tarquin 14:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
So say you, but it is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists.
On this note, the statement that "only humans possess culture" is not "the" definition of culture; it is simply part of any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists, one that disqualifies primates who do not meet the biological criteria of being human. Another component of such commonly accepted definitions that disqualifies chimpanzees and orangutans is the component of religion. Yet another component would be the use of symbolic language (emphasis on symbolic) to transmit culture, something for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. -- NetEsq 14:21 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
The trouble with anthropologists is that they think their own peculiar usage of any given term is ordained by God, and all other usages are debasements of His Holy Writ. (A good general purpose recipe, this one, by the way. Feel free to substitute whichever academic group ending in "oligist" is most convenient to your argument. Flavour with professional bigotry to taste.) My point, of course, is that there are many definitions of "culture", and although the term is, in broad, more central to anthropolgy than, for example, sociology, biology or history, it is commonly used in different senses in a host of fields. Differentiating between them sensibly, and yet producing a cohesive, readable article even so would tax Solomon's wisdom. Tannin
Given the fact that there is so much disagreement about the proper use of the term culture, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- NetEsq 13:52 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Good idea. Tannin
Hello,
I wrote the big long thing. I realize now that it would be better titled "Cultural Behavior" and linked to fromt this page. Who's going to handle the disambiguation, then?
In reviewing the previous versions of this article, I think that Slrubenstein's previous version provided a good overview of the generic concept of culture qua culture. As for the discussion provided by Theanthrope, this could be the substance of an article entitled Culture theory, but it still suffers from the defects outlined, supra, by Slrubenstein. To wit, "this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal." Moreover, "it is written in an argumentative, rather than expository tone." Accordingly, "much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular [theory] of culture." To this end, simply follow the link to Culture theory; then cut, paste, and edit the appropriate content. -- NetEsq 19:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I did a copy and paste to Culture theory; anyone else care to cut/edit? -- NetEsq 19:29 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I cut a definition of "culture" from the first paragraph. The problem is, as the first paragraph points out, there are many different definitions of culture and no consensus; moreover, these definitions have changed over time. The definition I cut seems to fall somewhere between Tylor's 19th century definition and an ad hoc definition used in many anthropology textbooks. Personally, I do not think the article needs such a definition. But if others disagree, I don't object putting it back in the article -- but I would insist that it be presented as a definition of culture (not the definition) and also contextualized (i.e., put the definition not in the introduction but somewhere in the body, along with information about when this definition arose and who still uses it). Slrubenstein
2004
I do not fully understand this sentence:
- Archaeologists' attempts to understand the processes behind material culture have also influenced their understanding of what constitutes an archaeological culture.
What confuses me is the pronoun "their." Is this sentence saying that archeologists try to understand things that influence how archeologists understand things? It seems circular. Are the material processes in question important because they inform our understanding of culture, or because there are material processes in the profession of archeology that have influenced how archeologists do their work? I hopy my confusion is clear! Slrubenstein
- Yes I agree it does seem rather circular now I think about it. Sorry about that. I should have said that advances in archaeological knowledge and divergences in archaeological theory have led to differing views of what a culture is; from the culture history view, thence to the processualist, anthropological view and now to the post-processualists and their rejection of systemic thinking. As is often the case, I thought I was being elegant when in fact I was being quite the opposite. I will have another go. adamsan 19:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC) *Edited in order to make sense adamsan 19:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC) *
Well, I am relieved that my confusion had some real basis. The only thing I would add is, I think something similar happened for cultural anthropologists. If there is something peculiar to the process among archeologists, or its result, perhaps the passage could be a little more specific too, Slrubenstein
- If it's the same for both then maybe something like:
- Archaeologists and anthropologists understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. As the disciplines have grown, their understandings of what constitutes culture have changed.
- That last sentence sounds pretty weak though. On reflection, I will revert and confine my planned disquisition on archaeologists and cultures to the aptly-named archaeological culture entry adamsan 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Then please be sure to provide a link to this article! I hope you understand that i was not at all objecting to the content of your contribution, only suggesting that there may be a clearer way to present it. Perhaps another issue is that in the US archeologists are anthropologists (I was not intending to contrast archeology and anthropology but rather archeologists and cultural anthropologists; perhaps you could say "Anthropologists, including archeologists and ethnographers" or something like that. Any way, I don't mean to resist your basic point! Slrubenstein
- Don't worry, I'll shoehorn a link in there somewhere! I just need to collect my thoughts on archaeologists and cultures first as this discussion has set me thinking! adamsan 22:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Spelling
In case it's an issue for anyone, I standardized the spelling to American, only because that's how it begins -- with the word "color" in the first sentence. SlimVirgin 22:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I changed a couple of instances of "artefact" to "artifact". But if any of you prefers British spellings, that's OK with me. I only mention it because I know it's been contentious elsewhere. Maurreen 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Confusing sentence
Can anyone make sense of "Moreover, they assumed that such patterns had clear bounds (thus, some people confuse "culture" for the society that has a particular culture)." If you can, can you rewrite it so that I might understand it also? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just delete it. Maurreen 07:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
General comment
This article starts out strong, but then walks off of a pier. The effort to get this up to a 1.0 standard is going to be arduous, because past the first half a dozen paragraphs or so, this is a long way from what it should be. I think we've made a lot of improvements to this in the last few days, but what it comes down to is someone really needs to research and write this article: it's not just a matter of cleaning up and validating references. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I thought maybe I was the only one who found it lacking. Maybe I can add material next weekend. As of now, it's just about how anthropologists look at culture. I figure maybe it should have info about cultural development and acculturation at least. I added some links to related articles that might help. Maybe I can do something more substantial next weekend. Maurreen
I wouldn't say that it walks off a pier (although the stuff on cultural studies is a little out of joint). But I admit it is a short article. The question is, what "should" it be? Jmabel thinks it is a long way from that -- but I am not sure what his vision is of what it should be. I think we mneed to be clear about this because some of the things it could be (e.g. cultural theory, issues in the study of culture, methods, descriptions of different cultures) might better belong on linked pages. Can we come to some agreement about what an article on "culture" must include, and the rationale? Slrubenstein
- I'd welcome that. To be honest, I'm not too sure what the article should be. I would assume that someone with a solid background in cultural anthropology would have a lot more to add... and that isn't me. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I actually have a solid background in cultural anthropology -- although I would defer to others (I know that there are some Wikipedians who are graduate students in anthropology, for example). Culture is a pretty big topic and if I tried to put everything I knew into this, it would get way too long. Also, at some poine what I know merges with what I think and this would become a personal essay, which of course is verboten. Thus, I hesitate -- strongly -- to make these decisions/choices by myself. I apprciate your humility concerning the topic, but you were right to raise the concern so I am sure any other thoughts you have would be worthwhile. Or perhaps you can encourage others (Mable?) to make suggestions? Slrubenstein
- Well as a newly-minted professor of anthropology I'd be willing to make some suggestions about the page, but I want to stress for the record that I care more for commitment and learning than I do fancy, authoritative titles :) It seems to me that the problem with this article is that it goes in circles over a relatively small number of issues. First: The idea of culture as 'civilization' or 'cultivation' -- a scale of less-or-more sophistication that spawns notions of 'high' vs 'low' art and 'civilized' Europeans vs. 'uncivilized' colonial subjects. Second: the idea of cultures as a set of distinct and incommensurable world views, associated with (often German) romantic reactions to the first view of culture. Third: the outgrowth of the second view, which is the modern (anthropological) culture concept of structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning. Fourth: culture as identity and the idea of distinct 'cultures', 'multiculturalism' and a politics of recognition. Fifth: What I would call the 'para-academic' discourse on memes etc. which is widespread in popular culture (and particularly that of wikipedians) but totally looked down upon by academics. So I don't have a strong vision to impose on the page, but perhaps we could pull out those themes as a way of at least solidifying it? Finally: culture is one of these words that everyone has a strong idea about what it means. So in the future some clash between what 'the experts think' and what the para-academic stuff says is very likely going to occur. So I hope we can all stay civil while stull making hard decisions that will improve the page for everyone Rex 20:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You distinguish five layers. I think each layer is important and would object to any one being deleted. However, if you feel that each layer needs more historical context and development, or that some layers need more development than others, I have no objection at all. One thing the article does right now is it provides a basis for understanding why the word culture is often used in contradictory ways -- I think this is important. But I find your comments otherwisae constructive. Slrubenstein
- You all know more about this than I do. Just my opinion, but right now the article seems too academic, like a textbook. Hope that doesn't offend the writer.
- In contrast to the study of culture, I think general readers would be interested in acculturation, cultural development, distinctions of cultures and subcultures, and contemporary issues such as cultural bias, cultural diversity and multicultralism. Maurreen 08:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I certainly don't take offense, I think Maureen's characterization is right (thought I think academic style is a good way to write a stub and introduce a topic). I also like her list of topics to add to discussion. Frankly, I don't really have time to work on it now but perhaps others will. I certainly appreciate Maureen's suggestions for the direction for the article. Slrubenstein
- Rock on. I'll see if I can't work on it in the next couple of days. Rex 23:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Citation of Arnold in opening portion
What's with the citation "(Arnold, 1960: 6)." The only work by Arnold given in the references is (correctly) dated 1882. Also, to refer to Arnold as a "cultural theorist" identifies him incorrectly with Cultural Theory, a movement postdating him by a century. Also, given when he was writing, he was not so much reacting against the broader, contemporary view of culture as maintaining continuity with the notion of his own time. And, now that I look, the quotation is part of the same one I used, appropriately contextualized, in the next section. In the same paragraph, I'm not sure who "The Leavis's" means, presumable F.R. Leavis and someone else. Can we just delete that paragraph? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm going to take the liberty of doing so, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, revert me. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) Looks like User:Slrubenstein beat me to it! -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said so but it seemed like such an obviousa thing to do, your argument was very reasonable, Slrubenstein
Unclear sentences
Two sentences confuse me.
- "This led to the modern cultural and social anthropology's concept of culture as defined by structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning and instantiated in cultural artifacts."
I'm not sure what it is that is "instantiated in cultural artifacts." And maybe there is a clearer way to express "instantiated."
- "With this more flexible model of culture, allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as, at least potentially multicultural, both in terms of different historically national or tribal cultures co-existing (with various possible degrees of blending) within a society and with the concept of subcultures."
This sentence seems to be missing punctuation or words (in this section: "allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as").
Also, would it be correct to break the sentence in two, as in: "… at least potentially multicultural. This is both in terms …" Maurreen 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I too found these sentences difficult to follow. I have thus rewritten this section. I ask Maurreen to go over what I did and see if it is clearer -- and perhaps make more editorial changes to make it clearer/a better read. But I ask Rex to go over it too to make sure I did not delete important content or misrepresent what he was trying to explain. Slrubenstein
- It's much more clear now, thank you. I hope to go over it a little more tonight.
- And you guys are doing a good job fleshing this article out. I think it's become much more informative. Maurreen 16:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Revert
Why were my edits reverted? Hyacinth 05:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- well, they are polemical. The article already makes clear that humans evolved with culture. If you think that this should be more clearly stated -- I certainly have no objection to the Geertz quote -- why don't you insert the positive (meaning, non-argumentative) point in the beginning in context where it belongs? As to your polemical point -- in general, I think it is unencyclopedic to refer to "some people" (although I know who you mean). Couldn't you just mention Rousseau and a few more recent examples? Even so, I would object to putting mention of them in the article. It is an article on culture and I don't see any need to mention critics of culture, especially when they are mentioned only to knock down (a straw man argument). If you are especially interested in those people who romanticise a "pre-cultural" humanity, why don't you write a new article just on them -- who they are, why they believe what they believe (and then you can link it to this article)? Slrubenstein
- Would you please readd the Geertz quote where you find more appropriate, I am a little confused as to how to add it to a history of definitions as it would seem to fit in with beliefs described as belonging to the "late 19th century" yet is more recent.
- Are you suggesting a preculture article? I don't see how I can write such an article if it is actually a straw man argument, if you have knowledge of those who romanticize a precultural state it would be a more appropriate task for you to undertake. Hyacinth 06:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you wrote an article exploring this notion of "preculture," the idea would not to make it a straw man but to develop it fully. That doesn't mean you have to agree with the idea. We have an article on Naziism, and I don't think any of the people who contributed to it are Nazis (hope this isn't too strong an analogy). Slrubenstein
