Jump to content

Talk:Culture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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

First of all, I am so unfamiliar with how this part of the site works... discussing the issue here and whether to merge the two terms. Anyways... I think that it would be a good idea to start off by getting as basic as possible with all the different terms. Then, find the similarities in them... which ones are universal to all other terms referring to culture? Also, I think that discussing it here is a very good idea... I think that even though I may not have a good grasp on things or maybe I do, by discussing it, you will be able to come up with a better idea of how to proceed.

By the way... Latinas ROCK!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.160.78 (talk • contribs) 6 Dec 2005. months, maybe years, after the comment it immediately follows.

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?

Theanthrope

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
Go for it. But even as a discussion of the historic growth from an inchoate notion of culture to the rise of an anthropological and sociological notion, it is weak. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

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 agree completely that the article should contain all of those. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:12, Dec 1, 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

Geertz

Hyacinth, can you elaborate on the Geertz reference, please? Maurreen 10:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lists of cultures

Why are not all contemporary countries listed? Why are local cultures listed that appear to have been chosen at random (Sydney, Stockholm, Wales)? Is the separate list of national culture articles necessary? Fredrik | talk 01:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that those listed were the ones that had articles at the time. Maurreen 05:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Probably. But, red links are better than no links at all... Fredrik | talk 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think red links are appropriate in this context. And because of the number of countries that exist, the red links could outnumber the blue links. Maurreen 05:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's no point in trying to hide the fact that those articles are missing. On the contrary, making the problem visible invites people to start them. Fredrik | talk 05:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we wait for someone else to weigh in and see what they say? Maurreen 05:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Fred -- red links are typically included in wikipedia entries to motivate people to start them. I don't know if that's how it works in practice, but that's how its typically done, iirc. Also, doesn't it make /more/ sense to have the separate page for national cultures contain /all/ references to the cultures of countries? There is a separate page for anthropology and the list of anthropologists, for instance.

The list is mostly mine. I did, precisely, list the existing useful articles. Think of this as mainly a "see also", not mainly an open-ended list. We do not routinely add non-existent articles in the "see also" section of an article.

I think it would make sense to create a separate article List of contemporary national cultures, link it from here, and make a very full list in that separate article, but the present article is not the place to add a bunch of links to nonexistent articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

But isn't the important point that this isn't a "list of cultures," as the heading proclaimed? It's actually a "list of wikipedia articles about national cultures." Since that doesn't make a very catchy (or relevant) heading, maybe we should just have it as a link. (anon 25 April 2005)

I realize this is an old discussion but since then I have completed(or I think I have completed) the list of national articles that wikipedia has it should probably be kept instead of merged.Falphin 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This list is absolutely irrelevant to an article on cultures. Most "national" cultures are the cultures of the dominant ethnic or cultural group. National cultures can easily develop jingoistic and fascist tendencies. Fortunately Canada doesn't have much of a national culture except the celebration of multiculturalism as central to Canadian identity. Perhaps Thangksgiving in the US would be an example of a national cultural PRACTICE but not enough to be a national culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.186.153.121 (talk • contribs) 16 Dec 2005.

"Vulgar" and "monadic"

I think the word "monadic" will be unfamiliar to many readers, but I'm not sure how to replace it. And the context around "vulgar" doesn't make clear which meaning of the word is intended. Maurreen 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who put in the word "monadic." I guess I hoped if someone didn't know the word they would figure it out from context. But if you can figure out a better word ("totalizing?") that is okay by me. I did bot introduce the word "vulgar," but I assume from context it means "coars." "crude," or "common." Slrubenstein 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No biggie either way, but I wonder whether it might be better to use "crude," "coarse", or "common," in that they are differences of at least degree. But maybe the ambiguity is intentional. Maurreen 06:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of how this entry should be structured

I've been thinking about this entry and thought it might be good to have it broken down into the following topics: 1. History of the Concept 2. Culture as Cultivation 3. Cultures in the Plural 4. The anthropological concept of culture 5. Culture change Something like that. How about it? Rex 23:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure everything will fit that structure, but it's a good framework as far as it goes. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, it doesn't sound reasonable to me. Can you explain the rationale? Here is why it doesn't sound reasonable to me. First, the "culture as cultivation" really isn't popular today, although it was very popular in the 19th century -- so wouldn't that go in the "history" section? Also, all the content on culture change deals with anthropological theory, so shouldn't that go into the anthropology sextion? Ditto, cultures in the plural -- isn't this too an anthropology development? These are issues I have based on the contents. Now, I have other issues based on the structure alone. "History" is a principle that suggests a distinction between past and present. "anthropology" is an academic discipline. "culture as cultivation" is a popular usage. Do ytou see how each of these three are categorically different? Each one suggests a different logic to organizing the article; to have all three in one article is like mixing apples and oragnes. It seems to me that we could divide the article into two sections: past and present uses of the term. OR we can divide it into three or more sections: "culture" in the social sciences; in the humanities; in the natural sciences. Or we can divide it into two sections: culture used by academics, culture as used popularly. I am sure you can come up with other proposals. But do you see what I mean? I have suggest three possibilities and in each one, the parts reflect the same logic. I just do not see any logic at all in what you propose. Slrubenstein 20:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Culture as cultivation is one of the most frequently ways that people use the word culture today. It is this usage of culture (more or less) that was previously in the first paragraph of the entry: "Many... us[e] the word culture to refer only to elite goods and activities such as haute cuisine, high fashion or haute couture, museum-caliber art and classical music". At one point in your comments you say that it "isn't really popular today" and then later on you say it is a "popular usage". So I'm confused why you think it's not a proper topic. Culture in the plural is a concept that predates the anthropological concept of culture, as the current entry point out. It also currently circulates outside anthropology as well. Thus it is both 'deeper' and 'wider' than how anthropologists use the term and so should not be subsumed within it. 'Cultural difference', 'multiculturalism', 'cultural rights' and other ideas of there being plural, distinct 'cultures' which give one a 'cultural identity' is one of the most commonly used ways we have to discuss differences between groups (it is also commonly at variance with how anthropologists use the term). So I think this is appropriate to discuss all these meanings as well.
The anthropological concept of culture, at least what I had in mind, is of a very particular sort: it refers to the structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional intersubjective understanding which is underdetermined by perception. It seems appropriate to have a section on this technical usage. 'Culture change' -- which actually means something like social change -- is broad subject and I thought others expressed interest in having a separate section on it. It could be moved into the 'anthropological' section of the article. I also think it is useful to have a brief discussion of the concept's history and background to explain its origin. Not sure why that seems unreasonable.
"History", "anthropology", and "culture as cultivation" are categorically different. That is why I suggested putting them in different categories. The logic behind arranging them this way is that these are the topics readers would benefit from the most, imho. The concept itself is not tidy, unfortunately. But for this very reason I think it makes more sense to be responsive to how the concept is structured rather than impose an elegant logical structure on the entry which may not actually provide people with the clearest presentation of the concept. Thanks for your feedback. Rex 21:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is more intelligible; thanks for taking the time to explain. I happen not to agree with your claim that culture as cultivation is still among the most frequently used ways of talking about culture, but it isn't worth arguing over. I would suggest picking one principle as an overall frame work, and then incorporating the different themes you see accordingly. In other words, either arrange the whole thing historically, making "culture as cultivation," "culture as constellation," and so on sub-topics, as they arise -- or, dividing the article into distinct subthemes, and writing each section historically -- but not having any one "historical" section. Slrubenstein 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Classical Music

From the article: For example, cultivated afficianados of classical music, would argue that music by working-class people such as punk rock is vulgar, and lacks the sophistication and virtuosity of opera. Similarly, they would argue that the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia was also simplistic and barbaric.

Err, aside from the gramatical error, are you sure we should be saying this? You're just appealing to (and reinforcing) an outdated stereotype that people who like classical music are snobs. Certainly not all classical music "afficianoados" think punk rock is vulgar or that aboriginal music is barbaric. Infact, I'd guess classical music fans would be less likely to make these sorts judgements than the general population. --19:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use "culture" this way. That is the crucial point. Slrubenstein 19:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture "this way" (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job. (Keep in mind "high culture" is a very different term and concept than "culture." If you want to bitch about the elitism of high culture--which it probably deserves--do it there not here.) -- 00:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sl is talking about the term "culture", and how people use the term, not actual culture. Hyacinth 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but the above quote addresses neither culture nor the term "culture."
Well, I didn't write it myself -- I'll take your use of "your" generically. But then it includes you too -- it includes all editors. If you can see a way to make it clearer, go ahead and edit it! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I cannot quickly find a source which openly states that classical music is superior, but I would say its more accurate to say that many, Julian Johnson (Who Needs Classical Music?: Cultural Choice and Musical Value, 2002) for example, argue that classical music serves different functions, making classical and other musics incomparable. Perhaps one of you would like to add this information? Hyacinth 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as the stereotypes go, I'm perfectly content with the current version: For example, someone who used 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might argue that classical music is more refined than music by working-class people such as punk rock or the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia. However, I still don't see the point of this statement, since aruging "that classical music is more refined than [other] music" has nothing to do with how people use "culture." We might as well be saying, "somone who uses 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might like the taste of wine."
"The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use 'culture' this way. That is the crucial point."
See Wikipedia:No original research.
Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Hyacinth 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I read that statement the first time around. Did you read my response? -- "Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture 'this way' (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job." (as far as signing my posts, I'm not a registered user, so I doubt it'd do much good)

If you actually go to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, you will read that "It is proper Wikiquette to sign your posts on Talk pages. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog."

And more pertinent to you: "If you chose to contribute to Wikipedia without logging in, the tildes will be converted to your IP address to be displayed as your signature. (An account actually provides you with more anonymity, if you are concerned about IP privacy issues.) You can also consider manually signing your posts with a pseudonym or tag such as --anon (although your IP address will still be stored in the page history if you edit without logging in)." Thanks. Hyacinth 04:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

recent revert

I reverted an addition that with the advent of the WWW we can now consciously create culture. First, this is not new (people have been doing this in every known society for recorded history. Also, the paragraph as written violated NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk

Improvement Drive

The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

relativism

I reverted a recent addition for two reasons. First, "culture" is not relevant to all discussions of relativism. Second, the idea of "cultural relativism" came after the idea of culture, not before; i.e. it was a certain conception of culture that produced the idea of cultural relativism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider. The word and concept "culture" obviously had to preceed the term "cultural relativism" however the problem of cultural relativism is as old as philosophy and was only sharpened by the coming into being of the term "culture" in it's two conflicting modern senses. This conflict between the two definitions, which is accepted in the current article, is due to the old problem. The question is whether it matters what sort of culture one "cultivates", or are they all equal. For example, was Nazi culture equal to English culture in value. The term "culture" is not an everyday word like "red" that can be considered seperately from the controversy that it embodies. Andrew Lancaster
I hope the new proposal I just put in is a reasonable compromise. Andrew Lancaster

The concept of cultural relativism is not as old as philosophy. To say that it is is anachronistic and inaccurate. Your Nazi/English example shows only that you do not understand what "cultural relativism" is. How much research have you done on this topic? Can you share your sources with us? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than just shooting your words back at you I'll just say that this should be handled as a rational discussion, and not as a rank pulling exercise. So please put your argument on the table, and not your qualifications. 1. Do you deny that the ancient Greeks were aware of the problems involved in the fact that different ethnoi (peoples) have different nomoi (rules, understandings, conventions, traditions, stories, lore etc)? Was it not one of the most famous and difficult themes of Socratic political philosophy that there is a very problematic distinction to be made between what is true by nature and true by convention (nomos)? I'd say that some interpreters of Herodotus would say that his work is built around the theme of considering "cultural relativism". 2. Do you deny that the term nomoi refers to the same sorts of things which we now call culture? 3. The Nazi/England example is extreme, and intended to be so. That does not make it wrong. It is also not wrong simply because it is not an example of the more often discussed contrast between civilization and un-civilized cultures. Would a contrast between head-hunters and fishermen be better? I think question 3 is where you need to do the most explaining. One possible explanation of your comments is that it is obvious to everyone that some things really are bad, whereas others are not. In other words, like the Greeks you're saying that there are some things true by nature and other things true by convention. But this is ignoring the very core of the matter, which is what I was trying to avoid, and it also ignores the fact that a majority of people in one of the largest countries in Europe could miss what is supposedly obvious. But maybe I'm wrong and you had something else in mind? Why not put it on record? At the very least you'll be educating one person. Andrew Lancaster

Asking you to cite sources is not pulling rank,m it is merely asking you to comply with our policies. I do not understand your q. number 3, or you are just talking about something else. At the very least we would have to distinguiosh between different kinds of cultural relativisms and be ver careful to explain when and where they developed; we must also make a clear distinction between cultural relativism and moral relativism, which I think you are sometimes perhaps thinking of. Also, if someone reputable has in a published or otherwise citable source argued that Herodotus and Platonic political philosophers were anticipating or grappling with cultural relativism fine put that in but cite the sources. The only reason I am not answering your question directly is because my opinion is not relevant, it violates our policy. What is relevant is my question to you, asking you to cite your sources. But regarding #2, I cannot answe whether "nomoi" corresponds to our concept of culture because Kroeber and Kluckholn delineated over 200 defintions/conceptualizations of culture. I would NOT be surprised that there be a sijmilarity between one of their definitions of culture and "nomoi" but I bet that is not because Herroditus shared our understanding of culture but rahter Heroditus influenced many 19th century scholars who studied him. SR

Your original way of expressing itself did not appear to be a simple request for more references. Thank you for explaining how it would apparently be possible to reconsider how to put in some of the material I felt should have been there. Andrew Lancaster 12:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture in other animals

This section makes controversial claims and gives no citations:

  • Chimpanzees washing sweet potatoes: this sounds tremendously like a paraphrase of the paper misinterpreted in the book The Hundredth Monkey. But that was a study of macaques, not chimpanzees. [1]
  • "…one chimpanzee tribe may eat a certain type of nut even though the relevant tree is few in number. In another area, where the tree is widespread, the local tribes may ignore the nuts." Citation?
  • "Birds in the United Kingdom 'all of a sudden' learned to break the tops of milk bottles to steal the contents. This behaviour rapidly spread across the country and was a factor in the fall in popularity of door-to-door milk deliveries." Citation?
  • "Some" (who? yes, it's been said, but by whom?) "have posited that the identification of culture as a property unique to humans is a result of homocentrism." (Isn't the prevailing term "anthropocentrism"?)
  • Yes, I have heard that there is tool use among primates, but a citation would be good here, too.

Jmabel | Talk 18:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, these are all great comments and I agree. I do not have the resources to respond (nor was it I who wrote these, I don´t think at least) but if others don't try to correct these problems/fill in gaps, I will try when I can. SR
So should we remove this until it has some decent citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I am removing this pending citation and answers to what I asked above. For the record, here is what I cut. I'd welcome material like this if it is accurate and well cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Other animals have be observed to behave in ways that suggests that they too have something akin to culture. For example, chimpanzee tribes have group-specific behaviours that are not present in other tribes. When one chimpanzee develops a new skill—such as washing sweet potatoes in water—other members of the tribe watch and copy the same skill.
Human culture is said to include food-preparation. For example, Indians are known for their spicy curries and Arabs, their various methods of producing foods from bean crops. Likewise, one chimpanzee tribe may eat a certain type of nut even though the relevant tree is few in number. In another area, where the tree is widespread, the local tribes may ignore the nuts.
This kind of culture is not limited to homo sapiens' closest relatives. Birds in the United Kingdom 'all of a sudden' learned to break the tops of milk bottles to steal the contents. This behaviour rapidly spread across the country and was a factor in the fall in popularity of door-to-door milk deliveries.
Some have posited that the identification of culture as a property unique to humans is a result of homocentrism. Along with other properties—such as tool use—it has been more recently discovered that culture, too, is present amongst non-human animals.

Comments from User:Seventhpower

IDENTITY

Nice insights in article.

CHARACTERISTICS

An old encyclopedia article said there are four elements common to all cultures: language, technology, art and social institutions. What are the characteristics common to all cultures? In an encyclopedia, articles about various countries will list many common elements: flag, political boundaries, exports, history, etc. A person could study each of these elements, using several examples. For example, one could study foreign foods, and pick the foods of Spain, France and Japan as samples. Or a person could start with one country or political unit and study all the characteristics of that country. For example, one could choose Germany and study their clothes, music, paintings, etc. What is the defining characteristic of a culture? Political boundaries? Language? Ethnic origins?

ORGANIZATION

How are cultures organized? What are the parts? What is the structure of the parts? What is the function of each part? In other words, what are the spatial characteristics? Should we start with the organization of people or geographical considerations? Does the human group define the culture or does geography define it? If language defines a culture, and everybody now has a language, when did new languages stop originating? How do new languages begin? Can we ever have a completely new language to originate in the future?

DYNAMICS

What are the energy characteristics of cultures?

How do cultures originate? How do they change? How do new ones develop? Does the process of colonization reveal most of the dynamics involve in the creation of new cultures? How is stability created? What can we learn by researching the kinds of languages spoken in a particular country? Do villages evolve into cities, or are they planned before being founded, as evidenced by their layouts?

APPLICATION

Can people change their cultural heritages. If so, to what extent? To what extent does public policy control the characteristics of a culture? For example, how many countries have a government agency which determines the official way to spell words in a language?

Seventhpower 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Seventhpower, your comments are thoughtful but make a number of assumptions. NPOV is a core policy at Wikipedia. Different anthropologists and others have viewed culture differently and we cannot take sides. A few examples, responding to your comment. (1) Characteristics. In part, this is an empirical question and I do not think anyone has done enough systematic research comparing all cultures to determine what all have in common. If some have claimed that all cultures have four elements, we can quote that claim, or cite it, as just one claim. But I know many who would take issue with the claim you provide as an example. Two areas of disagreement: what we in the West call art may not, by the local definitions of a particular culture, be "art," that is, what people mean by art is culturally constructed and this construction is not present in all cultures. Also, there is a long tradition in British social anthropology and American cultural anthropology that does not include social institutions as a part of culture. (2) Only specific schools of thought described or analyzed cultures in terms of their structure (e.g. students of Durkheim, like Radcliffe-Brown and Levi-Strauss) and the functions of its elements (Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski). Many scholars have actively opposed these ways of describing cultures. (3) dymanics. I think most scholars today agree culture is dynamic. But the statements and questions you present reflect the views of specific anthropologists, like Leslie White and Richard Newbold Adams (energetics) and Lewis Henry Morgan and Julian Steward (evolution) — again, many anthropologists reject the validity of viewing culture these ways. To be clear: I am not opposed to introducing these topics int the article. But I would object to introducing them as if these are universal elements of culture or universally shared ways of talking about culture. That would violate NPOV. We need to be very specific about who has held these views and in what context, and invite other editors to add other views. SR

Language and culture

Well, it seems that the language and culture section was duplicated word-for-word in the section of the same name in Language. Stop me if I am wrong, but I do not believe we do that. We put in the appropriate links, usually the "main" template. Before I caught on to this extensive mimeograph, I started correcting the section in Language. Those corrections as far as they go are quite valid so I am duplicating the corrected paragraphs here. I may not get around to working on this article for a while so I am leaving them here in case you want to put them in.Dave (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know who did that. The section was originally written here. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"The connection between the human capacities for culture and language has been noted as far back as classical antiquity. The ancient Greeks, for example, distinguished between civilized peoples and bárbaroi "those who babble", i.e. those who speak unintelligible languages.[1] The fact that different groups speak different, unintelligible languages is often considered more tangible evidence for cultural differences than other less obvious cultural traits.

The German romanticists of the 19th century such as Johann Gottfried Herder, Wilhelm Wundt and Wilhelm von Humboldt, often saw language not just as one cultural trait among many but rather as the direct expression of a people's national character, and as such as culture in a kind of condensed form. Herder for example suggests, "Denn jedes Volk ist Volk; es hat seine National Bildung wie seine Sprache" (Since every people is a People, it has its own national culture expressed through its own language).[2]

Franz Boas, sometimes called "father of American anthropology," (Lewis H. Morgan was the first American anthropologist) like his former German countrymen, maintained that the shared language of a community is the most essential carrier of their common culture. For Boas, the fact that the intellectual culture of a people was largely constructed, shared and maintained through the use of language, meant that understanding the language of a cultural group was the key to understanding its culture. At the same time, though, Boas and his students were aware that culture and language are not directly dependent on one another. That is, groups with widely different cultures may share a common language, and speakers of completely unrelated languages may share the same fundamental cultural traits.[3][4] Numerous other scholars have suggested that the form of language determines specific cultural traits.[5] This is similar to the notion of Linguistic determinism, which states that the form of language determines individual thought. While Boas himself rejected a causal link between language and culture, some of his intellectual heirs entertained the idea that habitual patterns of speaking and thinking in a particular language may influence the culture of the linguistic group.[6] Such belief is related to the theory of Linguistic relativity. Boas, like most modern anthropologists, however, was more inclined to relate the interconnectedness between language and culture to the fact that, as B.L. Whorf put it, "they have grown up together".[7]"

  1. ^ Baepler 2003, p. 91.
  2. ^ Quoted in Anderson, Benedict Richard O'Gorman (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso (New Left Books). pp. 67–68.
  3. ^ Sapir 1921:228
  4. ^ Sapir 1995: 59
  5. ^ e.g. Von Humbolt, Wilhelm. 1820. Über das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung.
  6. ^ e.g. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1941. "The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language." In Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Honor of Edward Sapir. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.
  7. ^ Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1941. "The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language." In Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Honor of Edward Sapir. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund. p. 293. See also, e.g. Boas, Franz. 1911. "Introduction." Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology.

Locking the article!

I see you are locking this article, as you did Linguistics! I begin to see a pattern. This article is not that good; in fact, it needs a good deal of long tedious work. I can only presume that you more skilled editors are going to take the opportunity to fix this article. For that not to be true would be unthinkable. In fact, there are several important articles in the same category. Well, I am glad to see I am not alone in my perceptions. It always puzzled me to see how high-quality editors could be working on such low-quality stuff. Why, to fix it, of course! I didn't get too far starting in on Linguistics, so I am not going to repeat the scenario. Unless someone invites me to work on them and can guarantee freedom from hassle while doing so I believe I shall let your locked articles alone. I dare say, it is about time you did this for the liberal arts, especially social studies. There are quite a few articles that need to be locked for this purpose. Bonjour, arrivaderci, adios amigos, best of luck. I will move around your perimeter where I can have a freer hand to achieve excellence.Dave (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware an article could be locked.Sean P.J. (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Also who is put in a position to have a page locked?Sean P.J. (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Rationale

Someone keeps removing an illustration from the article. The painting illutrates the idea of "the arbitrariness of the sign." It is in a section of the article that discusses how tthe arbitrariness of the sign is central to the modern understanding of the symbols and language, which are central to the evolution of culture. Since the painting illstrates a complicated concept in the article it is useful. I added a tag to the painting to explain which idea in the article it explains. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Culture

Culture determines who we are and where we come from, therefore, we must value them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Biological anthropology section

Speaking as a reader looking for information on the subject, I found the "Biological anthropology: the evolution of culture" section much too long. The material has a great deal of information on the discussion about "primate culture" while I (and presumably most readers) are mostly interested in human culture. Since this is early on in the article, it's distracting from the rest of the information.

On cursory glance, the information in this section looks quite good. I would suggest that it's a good candidate for its own article with a shorter summary being retained within this article. Kathyfeller (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good improvement. But if you look through the archives you will see several other editors who insisted that an article called "Culture" (as opposed to "Human culture" or "Culture (human)") has to include ape cultures and account for the arguments that Chimpanzees have culture and in fact there are cultural differences among chimpanzees.
Also, a number of editors wanted coverage on culture from a biological view i.e. how did culture evolve (not, how do cultures change over time, but how did a culture-bearing species evolve? What is the genetic basis for culture, or why did natural selection produce a cultural species?
In short, all sorts of people come to WP articles, and since we are not paper, we can be long and rely on a table of contents and a good introduction to orient readers and draw them to the sections they are interested in.
But I am not arguing against the basic idea of creating a separate article and having summaries here. Just bear in mind that we editors actually cannot make assumptions about what most people are interested in. Several people have argued thqat this article should actually provide descriptions of various "primitive" cultures. other editors have said there should be more about art and music and literature. Readers come here with a wid range of preconceptions and interests. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.41.34.154, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} under External links heading: replace dead URL with this one Dictionary of the History of Ideas "culture" and "civilization" in modern times 84.41.34.154 (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of this quote?

"His method begins with the supposition that culture exists in two different forms: the many distinct structures that could be inferred from observing members of the same society interact (and of which members of a society are themselves aware), and abstract structures developed by analyzing shared ways (such as myths and rituals) members of a society represent their social life (and of which members of a society are not only not consciously aware, and which typically stand in opposition to, or negate, the social structures of which people are aware). He then sought to develop one universal mental structure that could only be inferred through the systematic comparison of particular social and cultural structures." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture#1899.E2.80.931946:_Universal_versus_particular

Whats the author trying to say here? BTW, there is a "by which" missing, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.38.240 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see some mistakes I will try to fix. Beyond that one would need to read the structuralism or Levi Strauss articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiji

Fiji is a wonderful place so I was told they say you can hear music wherever you go. They also say that the people are very very kind also they say that the beaches are so beutiful. one day I wish to go there. So if you have a chance to go there you should. It's a chance worth taking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.233.6 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sense development vs. articles on individual senses

The article makes it very clear that 'culture' has meant a variety of things over time, including high culture, folk culture, archaeological cultures, culture in biological anthropology, and culture in the sense of cultural anthropology. The development of the concept of culture is important and encyclopedic, and this article should certainly cover it. However, as an umbrella article discussing the evolution of the idea, I don't think it makes sense to have long sections on the individual meanings, which are better covered in individual articles. This is not just because the article is currently much too long (which it is), but because the meanings have diverged so much that a reader interested in one may well not be interested in the other. I suggest this article be split into multiple articles along those lines, keeping this article for discussion of the history and relationships of the various concepts of culture. Discussion? --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of large articles end up having parts summarizd within the article and spun of to other articles. I have no objection to doing that here, although frankly I think any one part of this article could perhaps be improved and it would be good to have a complete and excellent article before summarizing parts and spinning them off. For example, the opening should have a paragraph at least on French romanticism, the tradition from Rousseau to Durkheim, both of whom really influenced later views of culture. Also, the section at the end on culture and change is terrible - few anthropologists accept the concept of "acculturation" today, and virtually all think that cultures are always change. So there is actually a split among people who use the word culture, some for whom culture is that which does not change (and is thus opposed conceptually to history) and those for whom culture is always in flux. I am not sure the article handles this well, and maybe the last section is the place to do it, but my point is that there are some issues that perhaps should be addressed before following your plan. Ultimately, however, I do agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I think, I've got it completely correct. Here's my definition of culture:

I belive it's the shortest and most complete definition of the word "culture". I'm not sure how well it may fit with several types of sentences about culture, though. I think the word is largely misinterpret and used where it shouldn't have been, so it should have a solid definition with an "amen" and a dot, before it got even more confusing and stopped having some meaning that is socially recognisable. So that people can understand what you're talking about when you're using the word. Thanks. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your source? I know many who would reject this definition ... who accepts it? Is it a significant view from a reliable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Who has to be a source? God? Well, there's actually none, so I'm afraid we'll have to figure things out on our own. The fact that you know many who wouldn't agree doesn't mean much. There also are many who would agree, so what? The question is is it correct and if it isn't - why? Give me some democratic debate. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. Tomeasy T C 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
A set of traits? In an individual, that could be personality, no? And how would you distinguish between a social group, subculture, culture, civilization or race with such a definition? Sunray (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog is, as Tomeasy suggests, reliable sources. In a blog they are optional; in an encyclopedia... not so much. Sunray (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Memetics is based on the same assumption as I did. I scaled it up to also include genetical stuff, but it might have been too wide though. Searching the web I don't find no genetical use for it in English language unlike in Ukrainian, though. Anyways, I, probably, have to make a best-selling book and wait a couple of decades to get this included into encyclopedia.. =D And it will still only be "Next of kin" and none of those other incomplete explanations will get deleted. Explanations which can easily and correctly be united using memetical thinking. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Bodylanguagecards.com really the best place to get a definition of culture? This is the citation we want people to see if they come here looking for a definition? Their first definition is "excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities", but I see that part was left out. This wiki needs a better definition. Maybe from an anthropology or culture studies textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.125.142.67 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tomasello

In reading this article on "Culture" I was struck by the number of times the developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello is mentioned (35). Is he really that central to the topic? Note - it appears that all these references were added by Slrubenstein on 01:32, 3 February 2009‎ Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use rp template?

It seems to me that the notes section is exceedingly long due to the same sources being listed multiple times for different pages. However, I'm unsure what the preferred method of dealing with it is. Rp looks like it would do the trick, but the documentation for it suggests sfn might be better. 786b6364 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures are too much and sometimes not corresponding to text, while it is good to show different pictures of the world it is not a good idea to illustrate with them sections that talk on different topics. Also the intro section has a lot of place for different cultures of the world to be shown, somthing that is not done by now. --Aleksd (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced text

American anthropoligy is a naming I'm not quite agreable with. Any anthropology and ethnology is interested in cultures. That means anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss too, the paragraph should be Anthropology, and if you need to be diveded by countries let it be so but American anthropoligy as an only paragraph where Claude Lévi-Strauss as a French anthropolgist is included, thats quite interesting. I am changing this, but the whole must be rewritten as it is utterly incorrect. --Aleksd (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And by this I mean that Lévi-Strauss has a significant influence on European studies on culture. I am not sure if this should be separated and observed as a school of its own but still. --Aleksd (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Too much wording in Language and culture that says almost nothing except for repeating Boas. And how exactly the Language and culture, as part of American anthropology takes onto semiotics, where study of language and culture is done in the USSR. And the structuralist approaches to Saussure that were largelly developed in Prague school (linguistics) still goes in Am anth section without anything being concrete on specific American linguistics "Second, in Europe, Saussure influenced the Prague School of Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, whose work would prove hugely influential, particularly concerning phonology, and the School of Louis Hjelmslev. Structural linguistics also had an influence on other disciplines in Europe, including anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marxism, bringing about the movement known as structuralism." (Structural linguistics)--Aleksd (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Lede state

I've done some cleanup, up to the point of dealing with a suspected confabulated and apparently unsourced (I doubt the source given supports what the text purports) etymological sketch. Breaking off here though noting same. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

etymological sketch historical precis of the term. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I just did a major rewrite. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Which I reverted. It is not an improvement to reduce a the definition of a complex and contested concept to a couple of lines based on the wiktionary definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncited 'Aspects'

The 'Aspects' section, wholly uncited, appears little more than a set of WP:OR opinions arranged as a haphazard group of lists. In other words the material lacks both thought and verifiability. It might be partially recoverable but it probably needs to be replaced entirely by better-organized material. Here it is:

"== Aspects of culture =="

"Aspects of human expression include both material culture and ephemeral elements. These include:

"Cultural regions are often defined with respect to an ethnolinguistic group or religion; the larger cultural groupings are sometimes referred to as "civilizations". Subcultures have distinct aspects, but share a connection with a larger culture (whether by virtue of inhabiting the same society or by inheriting certain cultural elements). Individuals can participate in multiple cultures and subcultures; countercultures specifically reject at least some aspects of mainstream culture."

"Cultural identities and subcultures can be defined along any of these lines, or others; for example:

"Mutual communication (whether through technology or transportation of people or goods) is an essential activity which maintains the coherence of a cultural group. This explains why cultural boundaries can follow divisions in language and geography, why globalization has created larger cultural spheres, and highlights the role of mass media in defining and maintaining culture. Education and tradition communicate culture through time."

"A given nation-state or society may have a single, dominant culture to which immigrants assimilate (the melting pot model), or be multicultural (the salad bowl/cultural mosaic model)."

"Cultural conflict can arise within a society or between different societies with different cultures."

I'd suggest we don't put any of this back without citations, and preferably incorporation into structured text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A discussion of culture is not complete without an analysis of Freud's monumental work "Civilization and Its Discontents." In Professor James Strachey's seminal edition, "Das Unbehagen in der Kultur," Freud uses the terms civilization and culture paradigmatically. Paraphrasing Freud, in a letter to his editor, "The original title chosen for it by Freud was 'Das Ungluck in Der Kultur.'" Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents translated and edited by James Strachey. W.W Norton, 1989. StanleysGQ (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This "Culture" article, with the exception of the first paragraph, the Change section and the Sociology section, matches Multiculturalism by Syed Ali Raza, pages 22 thru 62. My guess is that Multiculturalism was copied from Wikipedia rather than vice versa, as some linked names were omitted from the book, perhaps because there was a technical problem with copying them. But I don't really know. I tried WP:COPYRIGHT but that system assumes everybody is a copyright lawyer (I have edited Wikipedia 9 years, and I'm not a lawyer yet.) So I'm reporting it here. Art LaPella (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In either case it is a serious problem. In the first case for Wikipedia, in the second case for Oxford University press (plagiarism is considered a "mortal sin" in academia, just shy of outright fraude with data - full professor have been sacked for plagiarism (a Dutch top economist is now even under investigation for selfplagiarism - i.e. re-use of own texts)). Even if Wikipedia texts are free to reuse under CC, as far as I know this require referencing. Perhaps we should raise this to the Wikipedia foundation, who may have a point of view on this, and who may want to inform OUP about this ? (If not to protect Wikipedia from Copyvio claims than perhaps also to ensure integrity of the scientific process at OUP)

Article

is this a level1 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to write a report, but if you can quickly check whether the problem already existed before the first edition of the book was published (2011) using the last version of our article from 2010 [2] we could at least make a very strong case that Wikipedia cannot have plagiarized the book (as our information was online before the book was made public). Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that version of Wikipedia also matches the book (that is, I compared the beginning and end of each paragraph, and they usually match. A couple sections are reversed, and the missing "Sociology" section didn't exist back then.) I reported it here. Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading

I did a lot of proofreading. Here are some things I couldn't fix without easy access to the original documents.

Search the article for "unique and distinctive pattern". That is the end of a quote, but there is no corresponding quote mark to show where the quote begins.

Fixed that one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Search for "pp. 687–6874". Does the reference really mean 6188 pages? That is theoretically possible, but a typo is much more probable, considering how many other typos I found. The right statistic is likely to be something like 6872–6874 or 687–688.

Each passage was already wrong when it was originally added in 2009, so I didn't get any clues from that. Art LaPella (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Split out 'American anthropology'

The American anthropology section, and the 4 sections after it, form an extended essay introduced like this:

"American anthropology is organized into four fields, each of which plays an important role in research on culture: 1. biological anthropology 2. linguistic anthropology 3. cultural anthropology 4. archaeology"

What looks like 5 separate sections in the article in fact therefore represents one very long aside to the explanation of Culture. While anthropology (from all countries) has some relevance, the essay has already been labelled as WP:OR, probably correctly. I suggest we split it off, leaving a "{{main|American anthropology}}" and a modest section "in summary style". The Culture article will be a lot better for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This was done Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the topic?

This article is a mess. It seems to be about the history of the word rather than about the anthropological meaning. The awful first paragraph sets the vague tone for the rest of the article. Bhny (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation Issue

I noticed that the link used for the second footnote (to "bodylanguagecards.com") was broken, so I changed it to the version found at archive.org. However, while doing so I noticed that it doesn't seem to support the article statement well. It may need further editing or a different citation to correct it. Whateley23 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

thumbnail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.113.238 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hmm, it's certainly a mess! Could we get a link here to a supposed "golden age" version? A degree of messiness is inevitable though. Looking quickly at a version from Feb 2013 there was a lot of stuff appearing of good quality, if a bit essay-ish, that isn't here now. Did this get split off, as a section 2 up suggested? Ah, yes, it did, but was summary added here? On a quick scan, still missing are: Notes Towards a Definition of Culture by T.S. Elliot - influential in a general non-specialist way, cultural capital, Archaeological culture, and no doubt much else. Much of the article seems repeated at Cultural studies, which this article doesn't even seem to link to. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be working on this over the next month. I can't say I'e ever come across that piece by T.S.Elliot, but I do have a very large and broad literature on the concept which I will be drawing on. I am also fairly familiar with the old looong essay article written by Steve Rubenstein and I will be drawing on that too. Incidentally the article does link to cultural studies and has a huge section on it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd of course seen the huge section, but missed the link. Like many others, it should be a "Main" template. The Elliot was a short book, Faber & Faber 1948, 128 pages or so, that has been continuously in print ever since, though little read by cultural studies types I dare say. Johnbod (talk)
Or by anthropologists or cultural theorists. I'll have to go by the sources when i build the article, so if I dont find any secondary or tertiary sources that cite it I won't be able to include it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
They will certainly be found if you look in the right places. But I'm somewhat concerned by your implication that the concept of "culture" essentially relates to anthropology and cultural studies. That would be very wrong. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I would be narrower than that in fact and say that it is essentially related to Anthropology - cultural studies is a very recent niche perspective on culture. By cultural theorists, I mean philosophers who have used culture as concept in social theory.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear - no, that is Culture (anthopology). Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that would be a very odd pov fork. I am guessing that you are worried that a more classic humanistic perspective will not be represented. If you can point me to some works that yuo think would be particularly valuable to represent that view I will be happy to consider them. Preferably textbooks, or reviews that are focused specifically on understanding and defining the concept of culture. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite underways

I just rewrote the lead to try to make it into a roadmap of the article with links of all the concepts that it needs to cover. I am going to spend some time thinking about how to make a proper outline of the article.

Idea for outline

  • Etymology
  • History of the concept
    • Classical and Romantic ideas
    • Modern ideas and anthropology
    • Culture in Modern Society
  • Culture and Human evolution
    • Culture as symbolic thinking
    • Culture and human sociality
  • Culture and Society
    • Social Organization
    • Cultural complexity and Civilization
    • Material culture and technology
    • Culture and Art
  • Culture and individual
    • Culture as intellectual refinement
      • Arnold, Leavis, T. S. Eliot
    • Culture and mind
      • Culture and Personality
      • Cultural psychology
  • Theories of Culture
    • Culture as System or Process
      • Saussure/Radcliffe-Brown/Levi-Strauss/Bourdieu; Boas/Kroeber/Foucault,
    • Cultural materialism: biological theories of culture
      • Tylor, Morgan, Darwin, Marx, Malinowski, Harris, Dawkins/memetics, EP, gene-culture coevolution,
    • Cultural relativism: Meaning and cultural diversity
      • Boas, Mauss, Sahlins, Geertz,
    • Culture and class: political theories of culture
      • Marx, Critical Theory, Feminism,

Missing from the article: culture's characteristic of: being passed on by group to group & being emergent of any large scale human cohabitation and interaction

So I found the article is really missing these two fundamental characteristics of culture:

  • That culture is passed onward from group to group (as subset of this: biological & cultural [such as music genres and/or any subculture] generation to generation)
  • That it's an emergent (and inevitable) consequence/outcome from any kind of human cohabitation and interaction (culture referring here to macro-culture and hence larger-scale cohabitation & interaction)

I find this article way too important and shaped by a necessity of being defined in a sharply-distincted manner for me to touch. But I'm sure you'd find enough references for these two points.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Emotions of people not a part of culture?

So emotions of a people are not a part of their culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.185.19 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hobbes and Rousseau

Does anyone have any good sources for the claim that Hobbes and Rousseau said Native Americans were living in the state of nature? On the "noble savage" page, it says that Rousseau didn't view them as being in a state of nature, but without a citation. Thanks! Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple image template causing problems with print function

The multiple image template causes problems with the print function. Much better to avoid this template and put the pictures individually in the article. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culture/Archive_1&oldid=825367760"