Talk:Cultural universal

Where is the universals

One would think in an article about universals, there would be atleast one universal? I can not see a single thing listed that is indeed universal, Or even close to it. 210.185.16.176 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide more material/source to based your remark. As well, we should keep in mind that it is an hypothesis in some fields and some thinkers have written about it. Therefore, while the universality claims of any item on this page may be contested (and I think anyone strongly suggest you to provide researches invalidating those claims), it is still valid to have an article talking about this concept, overviewing the various hypothesis and raising the various oppositions/critics to those universality claims. MaximeH-ULaval (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions

At least in some cases, I know there are documented exceptions, so these alleged universals are not really all universals, and the list is dubious and misleading. (Reminds me of linguistic universals, by the way, where exceptions also tend to occur in many cases, but are often played down or simply ignored by the universal-hunters. But research on rara and rarissima is much more enlightening, I'd say.) For example, the Andamanese and Tasmanian Aborigines are well-known for lacking (or having lacked) the ability to make fire. (That they would seem to have lost it secondarily is really irrelevant for the purpose of such a list, which does not, after all, present an historical perspective.) Kibbutzim present a famous counter-example to the existence of incest taboos, and I have also seen the Alutiiq of Kodiak Island discussed in that context. Rape is not always proscribed and accepted in some cases – even ancient Greek heroes are portrayed as perpetrating it, with no indication of it being wrong. The Pirahã people provide a counterexample to the claim of universality for creation myths (among other things), and the lede to the History of atheism article indicates that "certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa" and the Vedda of Sri Lanka were also counterexamples to claims of university for religious beliefs in general. Gender relations and matriarchy are a hotly debated issue, of course, so I won't go into it (though I may point out that while the existence of true matriarchies is denied by many anthropologists – according to a certain definition of matriarchy, at least –, the existence of matrilinear, matrilocal or egalitarian societies seems to be uncontroversial, and in any case, the formula of "male domination" hides a lot of complexity in male/female relations), but listing universal male dominance as uncontested fact here is severely intellectually dishonest. Anyway, it's the exceptions that matter: one should think that it is unnecessary to point out that a single unexpected counterexample is more telling and important than thousands of confirming examples in science, through its potential to spur new insight, so it is imperative to focus on exceptions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

===== Original Tasmanians and fire ===== I have never before heard the assertion that Tasmanians did not have, or else "lost", the ability to make fire. While not really the point of your, admittedly very old, comment, such an assertion is likely to be viewed as highly offensive by any person from the Tasmanian Aboriginal community who comes across it, even on a talk page. While clearly not intended that way, it echoes and builds on the decades of cultural denigration inflicted on Tasmanian Aboriginals. My understanding, as a Tasmanian, is that local Aboriginal people traditionally carried coals with them to start fires, as the usually damp environment and vegetation, year-round, in most areas of Tasmania, made fire-starting an arduous task. This labour-saving tactic did not mean they could not make fire afresh! Aboriginal peoples could not have survived in what is a very cold region for thousands of years, without being able to start fire when necessary. Please consider revising this remark.

(I know nothing of the Andamanese, but at least their case is, prima facie, plausible, given the Andaman Islands are much warmer than Tasmania!) 175.34.114.0 (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: @175.34.114.0: Really offensive assertion - should not be here: "Well known"? Only as a false, racist re-write 122.105.31.155 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Tasmanian means of fire-making — the so-called “percussive method” — has been successfully performed by an anthropologist in at least one case.

It’s not all that mysterious. I recently asked my aunt — an Aboriginal woman who grew up in Tasmania, but is not of Tasmanian descent — about this practice, and she was immediately able to describe the process to me.

I suspect it’s the selective cultural memory of *white* Australia that has made this crude, racist stereotype ubiquitous among… certain kinds of people. Foxmilder (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I've found that some entries on the list, including not only patriarchy, but also marriage and sexual jealousy, have been challenged, too. So yeah, even if the list may now accurately reflect the source, it is better taken with a few grains of salt at least. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think it is a matter of clarifying the structure of the article. In the previous version of the article, headings may indicate Brown list was THE cultural universals list. I think the article would be stronger if many views would be presented as hypothesize and argued by their respective authors and critics properly raised where it should: either at authors level if specific concerns can be raised (e.g. methodological issues raised by other scholars, strong bias of the authors, etc.), at universals level (e.g. studies dis-proofing the universality claim) or at the whole concept idea of cultural universals (e.g. systemic/cultural biases of universality claims). But proceeding as such, someone interested in the notion of cultural universals or some specific list will find the different views, but will find as well due concerns about such "universals".MaximeH-ULaval (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Florian Blaschke "Kibbutzim present a famous counter-example to the existence of incest taboos"?? Where the #### did this came from? This is pure nonsense. I hope the rest of your arguments are better sounded. אילן שמעוני (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Florian Blaschke and User:MaximeH-ULaval: Having read your criticism, I think you missed the point of having an article. The purpose of an article is to describe the term and conpept, its history, meaning, methods of research and of course - criticism. If you went through Brown's book you will find generous discussion of "almost-universals" and "dependent-universals". You'll also find the methods of research taken, along with a discussion why, given the sheer number of cultures and societies, finding isolated exceptions do not merit removing it from the universals. The article is seriously lacking - and thus misleading - in presenting a clear idea what human universals are and also what they are NOT. To merge the criticism into each and every universal (and there IS criticism) makes no sense - the criticism should have its defined place, and not only "this and that universal is not universal", but also the criticism over the research methods, which definitely exists. אילן שמעוני (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It's been six years, but I was probably referring to this and this and expressed myself poorly. As for fire-making, see here, although in view of this the claim may have to be qualified. In any case: if a claimed universal has exceptions, it's not really a universal, only a strong tendency. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Brown has an answer to this argument. However, I neither agree nor disagree. Human Universals (the book) was a very interesting reading, and definitely refreshing after the Relativism indoctrination I got while in college. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle. As for incest, the royal family of ancient Egypt was based on it. One way or the other, this article is a disgrace for what I see as an important idea. I just don't have the energy to bring it to a proper state. It SHOULD contain the history of the idea, and that's going back as far as the Bible and Aristotle, and a very interesting turning point at in the 17th century. אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

According to our articles Donald Brown (anthropologist) and Human Universals he explicitly claims that his universals are intended to be truly universal, that is, to have no known exceptions. Once an exception is found, the alleged universal can therefore only be definitely judged as disproved. (For example, I can think of a well-known exception to the "black/white (basic) colour terms" one too: the Grand Valley Dani language. According to Berlin and Kay, the prototype of mili is black, but the prototype of mola is not white, but red.) I don't think universalists are necessarily any less dogmatic than relativists, and they may have their own political biases. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I can only vouch you that in the book itself, Brown does discuss "almost-universals" and (under "research methods") seem to me to lessen the dogmatic tone. All in all this is quite similar to "nature vs. nurture", in the society scale instead of the personal. Most likely it will converge to some in-between approach as research develops. אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong claims are preferrable, though, as their falsifiability is better. In science, the ability to be wrong is a good thing. Absolute universals are also more scientifically interesting than "almost-universals". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Since I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle, I prefer the softer version... The way I think it is, humans are biologically programmed with limited set of cultural options, but within those options there is still room for differences. So both "human almost universals" AND the existence of rare exceptions do provide strong evidence that this is the indeed case, much similar to "nature vs. nurture" for individuals. אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What you describe as "biological programming" certainly exists in humans, but biological (genetic, DNA-based) evolution, due to its slowness, has (for millions of years) been superseded by cultural (brain- and learning-based) evolution, which allows for much more rapid adaptation to changing environments. Therefore the cultural factors (nurture) dwarf the "biological" factors (nature) and we can actually rise beyond them to a large extent. So, for example, even if there was some "biological" (presumably genetic) factor that made humans prefer patriarchal structures that doesn't mean that they provide relevant limits on what human cultures can be like. Rather, our main "biological programming" is flexibility and adaptability, and (just as an example) strict gender roles are actually detrimental (they reduce flexibility) and a luxury only cultures used to abundance of resources can (but need not) afford. Technological evolution, as a form of cultural evolution, again dating back millions of years, provides us with additional (artificial) body parts, so to speak, in the form of tools, and even extensions of our brains, and additionally broadens and expands the limits of any "biological programming". Therefore, the root idea behind "cultural universals" is not very helpful, or at least they should not be taken as normative in any way, "what human cultures should be like", let alone "can only be like". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This way of thinking is refuted empirically. We're talking science, so once an idea does not match empirical evidence it must be rejected. IF the idea you presented - that the flexibility is the main programming, THAN there would scarcely be universals, BUT this is not the case SO flexibility is not the main programming.

This must not be confused with should. Should is value driven, not facts-driven. It is out of the scope of the discussion as it has nothing to do with science. Moral judgment is one thing, scientific facts are another. Morally most people say cancer must not exist, scientifically it does.

Personally, I think that racism is an abomination. The fact that it's probably one of the universals doesn't change my mind at all. My judgment is one thing, the universal facts are another thing altogether. The article deals with the facts behind The Universals theory, not with judgment. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Added later: Perhaps it's a good idea to add "implications" section to each universals category. I.e. in a section about intra-culturs universals add

Implications

These Universals cast a shadow over questions such a s wars, racism and fascism. The fact that the "others" (identified by skin color, language, beliefs and even clothing style )are accepted with suspicion or outright hostility may imply these traits may be the drive behind their modern counterparts.

However, there is quite a distance between the tribal level (as proved in the Universals) and the modern phenomena. The fact humans did manage to form societies three magnitudes larger than tribes implies that many adaptations occurred, and it's possible this Universals are not the cause, and the cause should be sought elsewhere.

Problem is, this phrase may fall under "original research". אילן שמעוני (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fiddling with the list

So the article still says "among the cultural universals listed by Brown (1991) are", as I have put it when I first built it years ago. But people took liberties with the list, just altering, adding or removing stuff. To put it bluntly, this is vandalism, because the article now attributes to Brown (1991) what is not in Brown (1991).

You are perfectly free to change or expand the list, but each change must be attributed to some specific source. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs to be attributed to correct researcher and "extra" additions that were added need to be removed. I don't have original list. A lot of the additions are patent nonsense - attributes that most mammals and even some insects have! Hardly unique human cultural universals! Student7 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list I had (copied):

"On the universals of culture (cf. George P. Murdock in Linton, The Science of Man in the World Crisis [1945], a concept that was updated by Donald E. Brown, Human Universals [1991]):

There are sixty-seven universals in the list: age-grading, athletic sports, bodily adornment, calendar, cleanliness training, community organization, cooking, cooperative labor, cosmology, courtship, dancing, decorative art, divination, division of labor, dream interpretation, education, eschatology, ethics, ethno-botany, etiquette, faith healing, family feasting, fire-making, folklore, food taboos, funeral rites, games, gestures, gift-giving, government, greetings, hair styles, hospitality, housing, hygiene, incest taboos, inheritance rules, joking, kin groups, kinship nomenclature, language, law, luck superstitions, magic, marriage, mealtimes, medicine, obstetrics, penal sanctions, personal names, population policy, postnatal care, pregnancy usages, property rights, propitiation of supernatural beings, puberty customs, religious ritual, residence rules, sexual restrictions, soul concepts, status differentiation, surgery, tool-making, trade, visiting, weather control, weaving. [147]"

Note that "linguistics" isn't noted. Somebody went off kilter there. Student7 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Many authors wrote about cultural universals. May it be better if, instead of having one list as now, current list would be clearly identified as Brown's list and other lists/hypothesis would be added? I clearly identified with a new heading the current list is based on Brown, but an additional verification of list integrity should be done and additional candidate lists should be included. As this is not my field of expertise, I will let other people do it.MaximeH-ULaval (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Notion of "empty universal"

 Done I think we need to discuss the inclusion of the sentence tacked on to the end of this piece which refers to "empty universals". The latter is a philosophical concept which, IMHO, does not apply here. Who in social science refers to cultural universals as "empty"? To say that a structure or trait or institution or theme is found in all cultures is not to point to a vacuous factor by any means. And by definition a cultural universal does not imply anything unique about a single culture. I am suggesting here that the sentence be removed because, unless the sentence's author can document the use of "empty" universal in the social science literature, it is inapplicable to the topic. Charles D. Laughlin 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC) There is no more mention of empty universal. This talk is then irrelevant.MaximeH-ULaval (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Shelter

 Done I have been fixing the disamb for Shelter and the biggest problem is that there is no page for the actual word "shelter".--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert needed Anthropology

This appears to have been a theory vaguely cobbled together by sociologists which may be pseudoscience. It is not wikpedia's job to establish if it is pseudoscience, but there is quite a bit here and very little to verify it, and does not contain a section on discussions of the veracity of such claims(criticism).96.55.138.35 (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Expert attention is always welcome but regarding "vaguely cobbled together by sociologists": the concept is most associated with Donald Brown, an anthropologist, who wrote a whole book about it. – Joe (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality vs Stub

I'm wondering if the neutrality tag is the best fit compared to a stub issue. I would like to see an expert give an origin or history of the term, and most importantly a relevance to any modern fields of study. If this page is to contain a list of proposed cultural universals then I agree we should expand the sources and change the tone (and possibly title) of the article. If not, maybe just a few examples given by Murdock or Brown and the list of 67 Human Universals could be moved to that book's page. A criticism section is only required if there are valid sources that criticize the idea. These might not exist if the idea isn't seriously considered by academia, but does not imply a lack of neutrality. DHHornfeldt (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this:

1. Why are you adding a source about squirrels that does not mention culture at all? See WP:SYNTH. Squirrels do not have culture. They have no relevance whatsoever to this page.

2. Why are you removing the existing hatnote and replacing it with a "see also"? Such links go under the "See also" heading, per WP:SEEALSO.

You need to stop edit warring your material in. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for your edits. WP:CAUGHTUP and the rest do not apply because none of your edit is policy compliant. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but your tone is too hostile for me to respond too. DHHornfeldt (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-nativist explanation

Does this section make sense? The first sentence of the second para, in particular, seems unclear, and makes a rather strong claim, as in: " ... and anthropological research ethics slows the studies down so that other groups unbound by such ethics, often at least locally represented by people of the same skin color as the supposedly isolated tribe ... reach the tribe before the anthropologists do, no truly uncontacted culture has ever been scientifically studied." There are quite a few assertions nested into these lines! The reference given does not, on my reading, support what this main sentence asserts. For all I know, it may be true, but I think it at least needs a better source. Since its addition in 2015, it remains unchanged and unchallenged, so that gives me pause, as maybe I just don't understand the topic well enough? Could someone more knowledgeable about the topic please look at this? 49.177.64.138 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the sentence; for another reason, that journal does not appear to be in a relevant academic field. Incorrect material lingering for years is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Crossroads for your response and making that change (and for your welcome to me). I thought it was a very strange type of journal to rely upon for an anthropological point, but glad to have someone more experienced confirm. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Title

The title "Cultural Universals" is misleading. If it's cultural it's learned (from other people), but many of the traits listed are good candidates for evolved adaptations, as the article notes. "Human Universals" would be much better.Paulhummerman (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)