Talk:Culture/Archive 3

Wierd sentences and links in a so called good article

This article has numerous flaws, including English mistakes and wierd, out of place, non-capitalized sentences. Look at the end of the article to see what I am talking about. I have tried to fix this, but the changes have been marked as vandalism with a nice 'rv vandalism' in the history.

Also what is the 'link title' link to example.com doing at the top? Can I delete this without being flagged as a vandal?

82.247.83.117 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Weber

This paragraph (if properly sourced) could go in the article:

Max Weber defined two different types of culture. The first type is Objective Culture, which are the actual materials of culture. For instance, a work of art, or a baseball cap, or a nations flag are pieces of objective culture. Second, there is Subjective Culture, which Weber defines as the meaning or significance of culture in the minds of individuals. Subjective Culture is related to Objective Culture, and the more objective culture grows, the less meaningfull any giving piece becomes. Thus, subjective culture varies in relation to objective culture, in that as objective culture expands, subjective culture decreases.

But not just plunked in out of context" It needs to be added in the right place, and contextualized. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture as stabilizing mechanism

This part of the article has me confused. What are stabilizing and operating mechanisms, are they the same, and is there an article on Wikipedia explaining them that could be linked to? Also, can someone provide a better reference for ANKOS (neither "iterated simple algorithms" nor "genetic unfolding" are in the TOC or glossary, and as readers know the book is a little too large to browse comfortably!), and explain how "the concept of culture as an operating mechanism can be developed" from Wolfram's work? It would also be nice to get a brief one or two sentence summary of what Dawkins says about this subject in The extended phenotype (and specific references if possible). Overall, I think people not versed in sociology would find this part of the article very confusing - I know I do. Moonshiner 01:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Defining" section

This is the first paragraph in the section:

"Culture is reprognostatized by fellow members of society by what stereotype they find demonstrated relatively. Therefore, culture is an outsider's view of what the insider produces. This is contrary to popular opinion that argues that culture is a group who demonstrate similar qualities."

Can anyone clarify it? Does it belong where it is? Maurreen 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that strikes me is that I don't understand it. That's not a good sign, given the number of years I've spent in the halls of academe and in the "field" studying culture. I will take a look at it and edit mercilessly. Sunray 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. Maurreen 11:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

COTF "To do" list

Since the article has been selected as WP 1.0 Collaboration of the fortnight, I think we should establish a "To do" list. Reading through this talk page, I note that there are problems with references. So first the item I will add to the "To do" list will be creating inline references and checking to see that all quotes are appropriately sourced. I've created a "Notes" section in the article for starters. Feel free to add to the "To do" list. Sunray 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Do you think Culture of the World be merged here? Maurreen 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you have opened a real can of worms! When I look at the "Culture of the world" article with all its stubsections, I can imagine it balooning to immense proportions. Moreover, it is a topic that lends itself to broad generalizations, many of which will be arguable without good references (i.e., a great deal of work). I vote a strong maybe. Sunray 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like people more appropriately ambivalent! :) Maurreen 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I copied a portion of it. I don't mind if anyone changes it. Maurreen 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it works well to complete the article. It reads as being rather uneven and needs a fair amount of editing. Sunray 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on it. Maurreen 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. You might want to keep the key components of culture, given earlier in the article, in mind: values, norms, institutions, artifacts. Sunray 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of "Culture of human beings"

Another merger was proposed some time ago. There was an article with the title "Culture of human beings." There was consensus to merge it on its talk page but that hadn't happened. The following note about its content is worth considering:

My guess is someone created this article without first checking to see if there are similar articles. Note too that little is verifiable or sourced. I am very wary of phrases like "may be" and the use of the passive voice. I know a fair bit about culture and I can easily argue (and provide sources) that for every "May be ..." in this article there is a more compelling "May not be ..." or at least "No longer is ..." Honestly, I do not think there is any really valuable content here, is sounds more like everything one person knew after taking a couple of courses or reading a book. I am not saying that the Culture article is perfect, but it is a much older and more worked-on article, and I think adding stuff from here will only lower its quality. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with these comments and so have moved the content here to see what (if anything) might be incorporated into this article.

The culture of human beings can be defined as follows:

One common understanding of culture is to see it as consisting of three elements: values, social norms, and artifacts. Values are ideas about what is important. Norms are expectations of how people ought to behave. Each human culture has different methods, often called laws and legal systems, of describing and enforcing its norms, though there are unwritten expectations and informal sanctions too. Artifacts – things, or material culture – derive from the culture's values and norms.

Language

The faculty of speech may be a defining feature of humanity, probably predating phylogenetic separation of the modern population. (See Proto-World language, Origins of language.) Language is central to the communication between humans. The Hebrew word for "animal" (behemah) means "mute", defining humans as the "speaking animal" (animal loquens), though some scientists argue that non-human animals are able to use language too, and that non-human primates are able to learn human sign language [1] [2] (pdf), a subject of ongoing controversy among linguists. Language can be central to the sense of identity that unites cultures and ethnicities.

The invention of writing systems some 5000 years ago, allowing the preservation of speech, was a major step in cultural evolution. Language, especially written language, is sometimes thought to have supernatural status or powers. (See Magic, Mantra, Vac.)

The science of linguistics describes the structure of language and the relationship between languages. There are estimated to be some 6,000 different languages used today. Most of them are spoken languages; the remainder are sign languages.

Race and ethnicity

Main articles: Race (classification of human beings) and Ethnic group

Some categorize themselves and others humans in terms of race or ethnicity. Racial categories are usually based on biological qualities, such as skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Ethnic groups are usually based on cultural, linguistic, religious, racial, or political affiliations. Conceptions of race and ethnicity, as well as specific groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity and hence identity politics. Because children are often characterized as belonging to the same race or ethnicity as their parents, race or ethnicity are related to concepts of kinship and descent.

Artifacts, technology and science

Archaeology, Technology, Science, Civilisation Human cultures are both characterised and differentiated by the objects that they make and use. Archaeology attempts to tell the story of past or lost cultures in part by close examination of the artifacts they produced. Early humans left stone tools, pottery and jewellery that are particular to various regions and times.

Improvements in technology are passed from one culture to another. For instance, the cultivation of crops arose in several different locations, but quickly spread to be an almost ubiquitous feature of human life. Similarly, advances in weapons, architecture and metallurgy are quickly disseminated.

Such techniques can be passed on by oral tradition. The development of writing, itself a type of artifact, made it possible to pass information from generation to generation and from region to region with greater accuracy.

Together, these developments made possible the commencement of civilisation and urbanisation, with their inherently complex social arrangements. Eventually this led to the institutionalisation of the development of new technology, and the associated understanding of the way the world functions. This Science now forms a central part of human culture. you guys need to stop editing the info soo much

Religion

Scientists and naturalist philosophers largely agree that humans consist of a body alone (roughly the physicalist or reductionist view); or that they also have minds, the locus of, or another word for, consciousness (roughly the dualist position).

However, many people further believe that humans also have a soul or spirit that survives death; that is, they believe there is an afterlife. There is debate within religious organizations as to whether non-human animals can be said to have souls; some believe they do, while others believe that souls are exclusively human, or that there are group souls held by the community of animals. Others again, beginning with Thales of Miletus, believe that plants also have immortal souls. This section details various ways that humans are defined by religious groups, as well as some of the ways that the religious beliefs are ritually expressed.

Animism

In some animistic worldviews found in hunter-gatherer cultures, the human being is often regarded as on a roughly equal footing with animals, plants, and natural forces. Therefore, it is morally imperative to treat these agents with respect. In this worldview, humans are considered a denizen, or part, of nature, rather than superior to or separate from it. In such societies, ritual is considered essential for survival as it wins the favor of the spirits of one's source of food, shelter, and fertility and wards off malevolent spirits. In more elaborate animistic religions, such as Shinto, there is a greater sense of a special character to humans that sets them apart from the general run of animals and objects, while retaining the necessity of ritual to ensure good luck, favorable harvests, and so on.

Most animistic belief systems hold that the spirit survives physical death. In some systems, the spirit is believed to pass to an easier world of abundant game or ever-ripe crops, while in other systems (e.g., the Navajo religion), the spirit remains on earth as a ghost, often malignant. Still other systems combine these two beliefs, holding that the soul must journey to the spirit world without becoming lost and thus wandering as a ghost. Funeral, mourning rituals, and ancestor worship performed by those surviving the deceased are often considered necessary for the successful completion of this journey.

Rituals in animistic cultures are often performed by shamans or priests, who are usually seen as possessing spiritual powers greater than or external to the normal human experience.

Animism is the belief that objects and ideas including animals, tools, and natural phenomena have or are expressions of living spirits.

Mysticism

Mysticism views humans as susceptible to an ineffable experience or realization of unity with the Absolute (see enlightenment, immanence). In monotheistic mysticism, the mystical experience focuses upon unity with God. Essentially mystic movements include Vedanta, Yoga, Zen and other schools of Buddhism, the Eleusian cults, Neoplatonism, Christian mystic orders, Jewish Kabbalah and Hasidism, Islamic Sufism, and the contemporary New Age. Mystical spiritual practices and experiences possibly, but not necessarily, coupled with theism or religious institutions have been present in all societies.

Polytheism

In polytheistic religions, humans are mainly characterised by their inferiority to the gods, sometimes reflected in a hierarchical society ruled by dynasties that claim divine descent. In religions that believe in reincarnation, most notably Hinduism, there is no impermeable barrier between animals, humans, and gods, as the soul may migrate across different species without losing its identity.

Polytheism is the concept of gods as supernatural or very powerful intelligent beings, mostly imagined as anthropomorphic or zoomorphic, that want to be worshipped and appeased by humans, and are present from the beginning of history, possibly reflected in Stone Age artwork. sacrificial rites evolved into institutionalized pagan religions led by clergies (e. g. Vedic religion, (practice of clergies continued in Hinduism, which, however developed monotheistic theologies, such as monistic theism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Germanic paganism).

Monotheism

Monotheism generally believes that a single deity, who is either the only one in existence, or who incorporates or excels all lesser deities, created the humanity. Humans are thus bound by filial and moral duty, and cared for by paternal providence. In all Abrahamic religions, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), humans are lord, or steward, over the earth and all other creatures, a little lower than the angels (see Great Chain of Being), and are alone in possessing a conscience.

In Judaism and Christianity, humanity is seen as unique among creatures in being made in the image of God, and intended for a relationship of love and obedience with God. However, it is believed, humanity's disobedience or sin broke that relationship, resulting in the Fall. Consequently, humanity is currently not living up to its intended potential for life, joy, and freedom, and instead suffers under the power of sin and death. According to the Hebrew Bible, God chose the Jews as a special people, and determined that all other people were to remain under the Noahide Laws, reflecting an emphasis on the fate of the community over the fate of the individual. Christianity introduced a greater emphasis on the individual, as well as the ideas of salvation, divine grace, and divine incarnation. Subsequently, the fusion of Hellenic and Christian thought led to the development of theology. Islam, established six centuries after Christianity, rejects the Christian belief in divine incarnation and the view of Israel as a chosen people, but retains the view of " mankind in Islam as vicegerent of Allah on Earth" http://www.humanrights.harvard.edu/documents/regionaldocs/cairo_dec.htm and the only incarnate beings capable of free will (or of sin) or acting contrary to their nature.

Hinduism also later developed monotheistic theologies such as monistic theism, which is different from Western notions of monotheism.

Humanism

Humanism as a philosophy defines a socio-political doctrine the bounds of which are not constrained by those of locally developed cultures, but which includes all of humanity and all issues common to human beings. Because collective spirituality often manifests as religion, the history of which is as factious as it is unitive, secular humanism grew as an answer to the need for a common philosophy that transcended the cultural boundaries of local moral codes and religions. Many humanists are religious, however, and see humanism as simply a mature expression of a common truth present in most religions. Humanists affirm the possibility of an objective truth and accept that human perception of that truth is imperfect. The most basic tenets of humanism are that humans matter and can solve human problems, and that science, freedom of speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts are worthy pursuits or goals for all peoples. Modern humanism depends on reason and logic and rejects the supernatural.

See also: Atheism, Atman, Conscience, Ecstasy (state), Ethics, God, Humanism, Incarnation, Karma, Korban, Morality, Mystic, Prayer, Rationalism, Reincarnation, Religion, Resurrection, Ritual, Sacrifice, Salvation, Sin, Soul, Spirituality, Worship

Society

Although many species are social, forming groups based on genetic ties, affection, self-defense, or shared food gathering and distribution, humans are distinguished by the variety and complexity of the institutions that they form, both for individual and group survival and for the preservation and development of technology and knowledge. Group identity and acceptance can exert a powerful influence on individual behaviour, yet humans are also able to form and adapt to new groups. An individual may develop strong feelings of loyalty towards such groups.

Sociology is the science that describes the interaction of human beings, while cultural anthropology describes different human societies.

The human individual often develops a particularly strong attachment to a small group, typically including his closest biological relatives: his mother, father, and siblings. A similarly strong attachment may be forged with a small group of equals, resulting in peer groups of individuals of similar age, typically of the size of ten to twenty individuals, possibly related to the optimal size of a hunting party. Group dynamics and peer pressure may substantially influence the behaviour of group members. (See also Asch conformity experiments.)

Larger groups of humans can be unified by notions of common ancestry (tribes, ethnicities, nations) or common geographical location and material interests (states), which are often further divided into social classes and hierarchical structures. A tribe may consist of a few hundred individuals, while the largest modern state, China, contains over a billion. Violent conflicts between states are called wars. Loyalty to a larger group of this type is called nationalism or patriotism. In extreme cases, feelings of loyalty towards an institution or authority can become pathological, leading to mass hysteria or fascism. (See also Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment.)

Photos

I added some photos and took a couple out. Please let me know if you have ideas for improvement. Maurreen 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could add a photo of some white teenagers at a shopping mall. Culture is not just a "non-Western" phenomenon. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found white teenagers and shopping mall, but not a photo of both together. Added the graduation photo to contrast with the initiation rite in Africa. Maurreen 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Western" photos seem to have been removed in the ensuing years. Could the graduation photo {File:Academic procession.jpg} be put back in? Cnilep (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keesing article

I'd like to recommend the article "Theories of Culture" by Roger M. Keesing, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 3 (1974), 73-97, downloadable from JSTOR if you can get to a university library computer. It covers a lot of the same material as this Wikipedia article and is widely cited and apparently considered important in the field. I came across it while Googling around for a definition of culture. I think a few knowledgeable editors should read it and use it as a source to update the Wikipedia article. I don't know enough social science to do that myself (I have no idea what structuralism is), but even a computer nerd like me can tell that something is amiss with a Wikipedia article on "culture" if Claude Lévi-Strauss is not even mentioned in it. Phr (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to add relevant material from the Keesing article. Can you get it? Sunray 06:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keesing is smart, but given how dated the article is, I'd suggest also consulting Sherry Ortner, 1984 Theory of Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 126(1):126-66. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunray, email me about the Keesing paper. It sounds like Slrubenstein is also familiar with it, and understands the material better than I do, so maybe s/he can say some more about it it here. Sherry Ortner's paper sounds interesting and I'll try to find a copy when I get a chance (probably not within the fortnight). Phr (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I have read this stuff - but more to the point, I am on the road tomorrow, and when I get back am on the road again for two weeks, and when I get back am off again for six weeks, so I will not have the time for any substantive work on Wikipedia until September ... But I can tell you that while many people may disagree with specific things Keesing or Ortner say, they are both well-respected anthropologists published in well-respected journals, i.e. reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the Ortner paper (also on JSTOR) and it looks good, not radically different from Keesing's, and somewhat broader (about anthropology in general). Phr (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Culture theory to here?

That article looks moribund and this bigger article addresses similar topics. Phr (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List

Just wondering about this edit: I gather that the edit is correct and that we've had a misstatement of what the Dictionary of Modern Sociology has to say in the article for a year? (The correction brought to mind Monty Python's "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"! "We have three… no, four basic weapons.") - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At some point I or someone else will have to revise this section. Someone is using Talcott Parson´s model, which was influential in the 1950s and 1960s but not today. It needs to be clarified and properly sourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to citations

Outriggr recently made some changes to the citations. Unless I am missing something, there seems to be an error in what he has added. The way his change was worded, it cited Kroeber and Kluckhohn but then quoted from a text by Wilson, so that there were two citations for one quotation. Now it could be that Kroeber and Kluckhohn cited Wilson, but if that is the case, the form of the citation would be different (and there would still only be one citation). I'm reverting to the original for now, but perhaps he, or someone else, could explain. Sunray 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting K&K through Wilson. Citation policy does not allow me to cite K&K unless I'm getting the quote directly from their writing; however, I am getting it from the Wilson book... so the version before your reversion was accurate. :-) Outriggr 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, it is one citation for one quote. Check any style guide on this. Moreover, if you read the paragraph carefully, it says K & K arrived at a synthesis and then Wilson quote is given. That is not K & K's synthesis, it is Wilsons. The Wilson quote is a good one, so I will try to clean it up. Would you be able to work with me on this? Sunray 08:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're still confused. Wilson IS quoting K&K. It is not Wilson's synthesis. I'm not saying it's wonderful style, but I don't really see the problem for the reader either. Outriggr 09:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK you should see my point by now. The lead in to the quote doesn't say it is a quote by Wilson, but says it is a systhesis by K & K. This is confusing. I will move the text here so we can work on it. Sunray 17:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from article

As the above discussion illustrates, there is a confusion in the following text:

In 1952 Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions and arrived at the following synthesis: One of the definitions highlighted in Kroeber and Kluckhohn's review is a one by E.O. Wilson (1998):

"Culture is a product; is historical; includes ideas, patterns, and values; is selective; is learned; is based upon symbols; and is an abstraction from behavior and the products of behavior."

While these two definitions cover a range of meaning, they do not exhaust the many uses of the term "culture." More recently, the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization UNESCO (2002) described culture as follows:

"... culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs".

So that is one way of approaching this. However, I don't know if It is incorrect to say that Wilson's definition is "one of the definitions highlighted..." I haven't read K & K and I don't know how they present Wilson's definition. So, perhaps Outriggr (or someone else) could tell me if the above revision would be correct.

One more small point. I believe that the correct way of citing the Wilson quote (if we are wording it this way) is to say: Wilson, E.O. (1998) cited in Kroeber and Kluckhohn... Sunray 21:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the source? Kroeber and Kluckholn´s book was written in the 1950s long before E.O Wilson wrote about human culture, it is hard for me to believe they were quoting his definition. Is it pssible he was quoting theirs? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I being really thick, or otherwise not explaining myself well? I will say for the last time: E.O. Wilson quotes Kroeber and Kluckholn in E.O. Wilson's book, "Consilience". The quote is "Culture is a product; is historical; includes ideas, patterns, and values; is selective; is learned; is based upon symbols; and is an abstraction from behavior and the products of behavior." E.O. Wilson describes K&K's quote as a "synthesis" of 164 definitions of culture that were reviewed by K&K. In adding this quote, I could not attribute it to K&K because I did not find it in K&K. Ideally, someone would validate the quote in K&K's book, and there would be no need for the reference to E.O. Wilson. However, I won't be touching the article again... Outriggr 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to Sunray, not to you. I am away from my library and cannot access the book myself, but I would not question Wilson´s quoting their summary as valid. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, you are absolutely right, Slrubenstein. Thus both the way the it was first written and my modification are completely wrong. Sunray 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What a mess! So as Slrubenstein says, it is not possible that K & K referenced Wilson. The problem remains that the above wording is incorrect and, from what Outriggr is saying, a new introduction would have to be written for the Wilson quote. I'm not up to that right now. Outriggr? (Or do you still not see the problem?) Sunray 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sunray: thanks for trying to resolve this but I have no further interest in this one. If the quote I added is now removed from the article due to referencing concerns, so be it. Outriggr 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to find the quote in K&K, and have not been able to. There is no mention of any synthesis in the TOC and, looking through the sections that might have it, I only found what I've qouted further ahead. (from the conclusion). --Dittaeva 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

my problem with this article

I think the problem is that this article treats "culture" as if it is a thing. I know that there are people who believe that culture is a thing, but if we try to put together an article that encompasses all the different definitions and components of this thing we will end up with an incoherent and sometimes internally contradictory mess. I think is is much more useful to think of "culture" as a way of talking about a set of things. The advantage of this way of thinking is that it calls attention to, Who is talking about culture? If we could sort out the different groups of people who have talked about culture (at different times, in different places, for different reasons) then we can encompass all the different things these people have said about culture without creating a big mush. I worked on this article a very long time ago and tried to be clear that different people use the term differently. SInce then, many others have added to this article. I cannot fault any of them, as they (you) have added much valuable content. But it still looks like mush to me. I hope my suggestion above is constructive in helping current active editors think of other ways of reorganizing this article or clarifying certain discontinuities. But if we try to come up with one explanation of "culture" that includes everything any important person has said about culture, we will just end up with much (or if you prefer, a big pot of stew - there will be something for everyone in it, but it will never ever be anyone´s favorite meal)Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. As I am sure you know, this article was selected as a "Collaboration of the fortnight" by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It was edited and added to, improved in some ways and rated as a "good article." All that doesn't mean that it is without flaws and you are pointing out a fairly major one. I would be willing to work with you to improve it. Sunray 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in the field right now and have acces only to the slowest internet connection in the world. But if you are willing to take a first stab at it, I will be happy to go over anything you do. If you go back to 2001 or 2002 you can see my original organization of the article which I admit was very inadequate both because these were the early days of Wikipedia before some policies were clearly defined and enforced, and because my effort was pretty minimal. All the added content (almost all) is important and great, I am really just thinking of organization. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been staring at this article so long, I don't know if I can see the forest for the trees, but I will take a look and see what strikes me. Meantime, whenever you get the chance, give me your thoughts. Sunray 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would turn number 3 into a section on different theories of culture, identify each theory with a name or group of names, and historicize it. I would thoroughly incorporate what is now in sections 1 and 2 into the new section 3, as different groups disagree as to definitions and components. Sections 7 and 8 would each become one of the "schools of thought" in section 3. I would get rid of section 6 altogether, and merge it either with the article on religion, or anthropology of religion, it just doesn´t belong here. Cultures within a culture would become sub-cultures. (See the capitalism article for a model). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. In fact, I think that if we were able to pull it off it could easily become a featured article. One caveat to this: The article is, at present, somewhat "academic" in tone. By that I mean that it scores pretty high on the readability level test (i.e., the average reader would likely struggle with it). This isn't a good thing in a core article in a general encyclopedia. So I will keep that in mind and try to cut down on the number of four and five syllable words, long sentences, etc. I will definitely need help with the historicity, though. Sunray 01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you like it. Can you go ahead and start? I am in the Ecuadorian mazon and (1) have no access to my library and (2) have access only to the crappiest internet connections in the world. I think you can do a good deal of reorganizing on your own. For any guidance on the history of anthropology see if your local library has any books by Adam Kuper (he wrote one on US anthropology and one on UK anthropology). Raymond Williams book Keywords has a good short article on "culture." The famed book by Klucknoln and Kroeber is extensive. These would be more than enough resources for anyone at this stage. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs. The last anthropology courses I've taken were back in the mid-eighties, so I'm a tad rusty. I can get Culture and Anthropology and anthropologists by Kuper, and Keywords by Williams on an interlibrary loan. It will take a few days to get them. Sunray 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking off on these observations, as a veteran anthro theorist and practitioner, I have to say that the very use of "culture" is becoming increasingly less necessary or valuable in cultural anthropology itself. As a discipline, Anthro has long wrangled with the concept (as is well spelled out in this editing talk), but today talk of symbols and signs seem very much a part of an older generation (1960s - 1980s) and such worries do not really play a major role in some of the most progressive, trend setting scholars in the field. In short, I think that in order to be fair the concept of culture as anthropologists deal with it should be flagged as a historical concept, an anachronism, if you will. Anthropology today is very much about "cultures", plural, and not about the study of "culture" as it is portrayed here. Maybe a separate definition/concept needs to emerge in Wikipedia. - Drew Walker

Cognition

"Currently, a debate is underway regarding whether or not culture can actually change fundamental human cognition. Researchers are divided on the question." This makes it sound like this is something very current. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis goes back the better part of a century. - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn{t make this entry and wish whoever did added more information. As far as I know (and psychological or cognitive anthropology is not my specialization) everyone agrees culture affects perception and cognition. But I think there is very little agreement over how exactly(beyond very very obvious examples) and to what extent. In the 1970s there were anthropologists who, like Chomsky in linguistics, were trying to establish universal models of cognition that were truly cross-culturally valid. Some still do this, associated with the Human relations Area Files at Harvard (Ember is the big name in this, now). Most anthropologists are skeptical of the degree of overgeneralization. But there is no solid consensus. And now you all know everything I know on the topic. Who knows more? Please add more details and verifiable sources! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) .

current discourse need indicative refs

"Currently, a debate is underway regarding whether or not culture can actually change fundamental human cognition. Researchers are divided on the question." Who are the key voices in this debate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szczels (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Africa

Someone seems to be asking for a citation for Sub-Saharan African having a lesser influence by Arab and Islamic culture than North Africa. This seems bizarre. North Africa is predominantly Arab and almost uniformly Muslim; Sub-Saharan African has almost no Arabs and features a great variety of religions. This is like trying to cite for U.S. culture not being predominantly Asian. I can't see how you cite for something like this. Or why anyone would feel the need to. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, although you should know that much of sub-Saharan Africa that runs immediately south of the Sahara - from Nigeria to Kenya - is very very much influenced by Arab culture and includes many Muslims. It's silly to try to compare Kenya to Egypt in terms of "Arab influence" but it is also a major error to ignore the widespread use of Arabic and numbers of Muslims south of the Sahara. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and Arab traders also went clear down the East Coast of Africa, but, again, to compare their influence there to the areas that are simply culturally Arab? - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the one that made the original claim (that sub-saharan africa was heavily influenced by islamic and arab cultures) is the one that should bring forth the citation. I agree, there may be some muslims there and arabs to a less degree, but in general they have such a high mix with majorities of non-arabs and non-muslims that it doesn't seem to make sense to me. There may be regions where there is a high influence (somal, as an example) but not overal influence; at least not heavily . --Maha Odeh 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Quote:

Monoculturalism: In Europe, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants.

What countries in Europe? The official policy in the UK - a country of Europe - is multiculturalism, so this statement is clearly wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.198.181.93 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006.

Etymology

Culture stems from Latin colere by way of cultura, see:

• .etymonline.com
• wsu.edu
• Google Books (very old source)
• caplex.no (norwegian, could be valid only for the norwegian word kultur)
• uio.no (norwegian, could be valid only for the norwegian word kultur)

I'm not 100% centain about this as I don't have access to any comprehensive english etymology. --Dittaeva 10:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I promise you that the English and Norwegian etymologies are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if it got from Latin to Norwegian via German, though, and from Latin to English via French. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the original etymology - which cites colere but not cultura - from Raymond Willians Keywords, I think he relied largeloy on the OED. When I added that etymology I did not I admit (with embarassment) that I did not source it. That said, Williams was a major major scholar and I think a more valuable source than a bunch of websites (though with etymologies I will almost always defer to OED). Slrubenstein | Talk 07:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952 discusses the etymology extensively in the introduction and on page 62-63, I will return with citations. --Dittaeva 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Kroeber and Kluckholn - they are a valid source...but so is Williams. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952 about culture

From CULTURE - A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, by A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn. New York: Vintage Books. 1963. Originally published in 1952 as Vol. XLVII—No. 1 of the Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. (Since the quotation is in italic, the original italics are indistinguishable. The text has been written off by hand, and not proofed.)
Page 4:

By the nineteenth century the basic notion was ready to crystallize in an explicit, generalized form. The emergence of the German word, Kultur, is reviewed in the next section, Part I. In developing the notion of the "super-

Page 5:

organic," Spencer presaged one of the primary anthropological conceptions of culture, although he himself used the word "culture" only occasionally and casually.[4] The publication dates of E. B. Tylor's Primitive Culture and of Walter Bagehot's "cake of custom" is, in essence, very similar to Tylor's "culture." The latter slowly became established as the technical term because of the historical associations of the word and because Tylor defined its generic implications both more sharply and more abstractly.

Page 62:

We summarize here what the Oxford Dictionary has to say about the history of the word.[89]

Culture is derived from Latin cultura, from the verb colere, with the meaning of tending or cultivation. [It may also mean an honoring or flattering; husbandry—Short's Latin dictionary.] In Christian authors, cultura has the meaning of worship. The Old French form was couture, later replaced by culture. In English the following uses

are established: 1420, husbandry, tilling; 1843, worship;[90] 1510, training of the mind, faculties, manners, More (also, 1651, Hobbes; 1752, Johnson; 1848, Macaulay); 1628, training of the human body, Hobbes. Meaning 5 is: "The training, development, and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners; the condition of being thus trained and refined; the intellectual side of civilization." This is illustrated by citations from Wordsworth, 1805, and Matthew Arnold.[91] "A particular form of intellectual development," evidently referring to a pairing of language and culture, is illustrated from Freeman, 1867. Then there are the applications to special industries or technologies, with culture meaning simply "the growing of." Such are silk culture, 1796; oyster culture, 1862; bee culture, 1886; bacterial cultures, 1884.

There is no reference in the original Oxford Dictionary of 1893 to the meaning of culture which Tylor had deliberately established in 1871 with the title of his most famous book, Primitive Culture, and had defined in the first paragraph thereof. This meaning finally was accorded recognision sixty-two years after the fact, in the supplement[92] of 1933. The entry reads:

5b. spec. The civilization of a people (especially at a certain stage of its development in history).

1871, E. B. Tylor (title), Primitive Culture.

[1903, C. Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico is also cited.]

Footnotes:
[89]:

A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, ed. by J. A. H. Murray, vol. II, 1893.

[90]:

Eliot (1948) cites from the Oxford Dictionary another (rare) meaning of 1843: "The setting of bounds; limitation."

[91]:

Culture is "the study and pursuit of perfection"; and, of perfection, "sweetness and light" are the main characters.

[92]:

"Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography."

Page 291:

In Part II we have cited one hundred sixty-four[4a] definitions of culture.

Footnotes:
[4a]:

Actually, if additional definitions in Part III, in footnotes, and in quotations throughout the monograph are counted, there are probably close to three hundreed "definitions" in these pages. However, sampling indicates that the main conclusions we draw from the one hundred and sixty-four would not be substantially altered if we had retabulated to include every possible "definition."

Comment: I have verified that they have listed 164 definitions. Those includes three "sub-definitions" (B: 4a, C-I: 18a, F-I: 1a). --Dittaeva 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Page 309:

Of "statements," however, we included only the more significant or interesting or his-

Page 310:

torically relevant ones. Their number could easily have been doubled or trebled.

Page 357 (Part IV: Summary and Conclusions; C: Conclusion; A final review of the conceptual problem)

Again avoiding a new formal definition, we may say—extending a little what has already been stated in III-e-15—that this central idea is now formulated by most social scientists approximately as follows:

Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further action.

Barbarian aristocrats?

"The difference was labelled as 'high culture', and 'low culture', associated with the Barbarians (the aristocracy) and the Populace (the working class) respectively." This must be wrong, the only question is how wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird changes by 124.104.219.222 on Dec. 29, 06

User 124.104.219.222 erased at least most the pictures, language links, notes, references, see also part as well as external links. I change the page back to its last edition on Jan. 2, 07 while no one else fond out that many parts of the page had been erased in these 3 days! We should be more careful! --Hbayat 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)