Talk:Culture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article Organization - Personal note

I had home-school for my children and in our situation I was able to create my own curriculum. I had to take large amounts of information gathered from research, process it quickly and condense it into something meaningful to me so I could set up an activity for the children on a particular subject. For resources, I had textbooks, library, and encyclopedia. The encyclopedia was especially useful because it would condense massive amounts of information into a few manageable categories which could easily be remembered. Then I could start with 5-10 key elements and branch out from the top down. After looking up very broad categories over and over, I started to have a basis of comparison.

I especially remember the article on Culture from the 1962 World Book Encyclopedia. It said that there were four elements common to all cultures: language, technology, art and social institutions. This was something simple that I could visualize and work with. It also said that there are three elements common to all languages: sound, vocabulary and grammar. The article on Language itself was not as good as the Culture section on Language. The elements of language explanation was very inspiring. After reading it, I felt that I could go out and learn any language. First, just listen to the sounds, without worrying about pronouncing words. Then try to pronounce the words. Then go on to vocabulary. Then grammar. What a contrast to high school Latin, where the first day is grammar!

The article on The World gave a very nice definition of Science. It said that Science is an organized body of knowledge about nature, or something to that effect. The article on Science itself did not give a nice definition like that.

Once I saw a list of the elements of physics, without the formulas, using simple abbreviations. It may have been in a book called Nature's Electricity. The list started out with M for mass, L for distance, T for time, L/T for speed, etc. for acceleration, momentum, force, pressure, work, energy, power, etc. I tried to take some of those elements and ask what are the elements common to studying ANY subject. I came up with a list that has worked well over a long period of time:

Identity: definition, characteristics, examples

Organization: (spatial characteristic)

structure, parts, function

Processes: time characteristics

Dynamics: (energy characteristics)

cause & effect, cycles, relationships

Applications: (directional characteristics)

Many encyclopedia articles incorporate these categories into their articles, which makes for uniformity.

The first subject we studied using this "method" was boats. First we found examples of boats. Then we studied the parts of boats. Then we went through the process of building a boat, etc. It was all very thrilling. We launched the boats down in the creek which empties into the river. The children have pictures of this in their portfolios.

Make this article on Culture as inspiring to others as the 1962 article was to me.

Seventhpower 04:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Seventhpower, this is indeed a worthy goal. However, the study of cultures has developed a good deal since the early 1960s (just as has the study of human evolution) and we must make sure our article is up-to-date. If you want to help with this, and I hope you do, one place you might want to start research is Eric Wolf´s Europe and the People Without History which was written in the 1980s, addresses many of the isues you raise, and was an attempt to synthasize a good deal of research on culture done in the 1960s and 1970s. It sounds like you would also find many of the essays in Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts by Nigel Rapport and Joanna Overing very, very useful. But I am afraid that your boat analogy breaks down because whereas the word "boat" refers to real (material) things, the word "culture" refers to a way of talking about real things — and there are many different ways people have for talking about such things, and thus very different understandings of the word "culture." SR

Re: Definition

The article gives examples of two definitions. The first one starts out with 'complex whole,' and the second suggests 'features of society.' If we take the concept of definition, it has been suggested that a definition has two parts: What group or class does it belong to? How is it different from others in the group?

I think this comes from Aristotle. It is a useful way to go about defining things. But it is based on epistemological and ontological assumptions many philosophers now reject. Moreover, there are some terms where this simply is not a useful way to go about defining things. I think Wittgenstein is more useful than Aristotle, ultimately. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What other words could be used to describe the, "class" that culture belongs to?

One answer is "things anthropologists study" but there are other, divergent answers to your question. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Is culture the study of a topic or a topic to study?

A topic to study, and — something you do not suggest — a way of conceptualizing other things one might study (e.g. skyscrapers, paintings, music, sermons), in your Aristotelian framework, one could suggest that "culture" is itself a "class." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If it is a topic to study, learn or learn about, then how and where do we study and learn about it? In what types of school books would you find the subject?

Different disciplines: predominantly anthropology; but also art history, cultural studies, and to a lesser degree sociology, psychology, political science, and comparative literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like your answers. I am just not used to this type of interaction. And I am used to articles where everything is black and white and authoritative. It takes a while to absorb what you are saying. The 'wider view' is pretty wide. I would like to see the comments above on the different disciplines included in the article, including the reference to cultural geography below. Seventhpower 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If a child read a definition of culture, would they be able to guess what word matched the definition?

I would say "no," because I do not believe a child could guess the word based on any definition. Humans need to learn what words come with which definitions. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If culture is a topic of study, then what exactly would a person study?

The answer to this question depends on one's definition of culture, which depends in part on one's discipline. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If someone is not sure what culture is, then how would they know if what they were studying was actually culture? Would they have to make an executive decision about it?

Same answer as a bove. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If culture is a topic of study, for the sake of argument, how is culture different from other similar topics of study? For example, how is it different from psychology, education, or geography, which relate to human activities?

Psychology is not a topic of study, it is a discipline that studies the mond (just as anthropology is the discipline that studies culture) — you need to distinguish between disciplines and their objects of study. Grammatically, one can say "I study anthropology" and "I study culture" but these two sentences do not mean the same thing, they do not operate on the same semantic level. People who study anthropology also study culture, but they study other things too (such as, the different frameworks and theories concerning what culture is, how it evolved, etc.) Also, once can study culture without being an anthropologist (one branch of geography is "cultural geography;" they too study culture). Geography, like psychology and anthropology, is an academic discipline, not the object of study of that discipline. Education is a polysemic word that refers to (1) and academic discipline (2) a social institution (3) a social process. I cannot answer your question unless I know which of these three meanings you are implying when you mention "education." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

These are rhetorical questions, to think about, not literal questions. In other words, what more could be done on the actual definition of culture?

I disagree. I do not think they are rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions only work when they are raised among a group of people with a shared language. By language I do not mean "English" or "Spanish," I also mean technical languages. Contributors to Wikipedia come from diverse backgrounds and are conversant in different technical languages. So the rhetorical point you wish to make is not going to be understood by all contributors to Wikipedia. If we cannot respond to your questions literally, then we cannot respond to them at all, because we won't understand what point you are trying to make.

If your point is that the article can be improved, well, my friend, that is a point all editors agree on concerning most articles. No offense, but it is not much of a point — not because it lacks merit, but only because it is so obvious. The question is, what area of the article do we focus on today? How do we improve it? Your questions are either meant to contribute to this process, or they are not. If they are not, it was a waste of time for me to answer them. But if they are, then the only thing I can do to join in this process of improving the article is to answer each question as it was posed by you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Seventhpower 04:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Could the word "features" be considered as a controlling word and a candidate for the first part of a working definition and the word "society" for the second part?

Not exactly, as people disagree as to the features of culture (on the other hand, the fact that they disagree means that like you they think it is important to ask, what are its features?). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to grammatically diagram the UNESCO definition in order to get the essence of it. I can't visualize or remember the entire thing at first, so I take one or two words at a time and think about them until I 'get it,' then add more. That was the only definition I could relate to, and I was trying to fit it into the definition concept mentioned at first. Seventhpower 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Would this make sense:

What group does it belong to? Features.

I do not understand. "Features" is the name of a group to which "culture" belongs? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it different from others in the group?

Since I do not understant what this group is that you call "features," I cannot answer your question. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Features of society, as opposed to features of geography, etc.

I do not understand this. Society and geography are not parallel. Society refers to the object of study of sociologists. Geography is both the object of study of geographers, and the name of the discipline that studies geographic features. So you need to specify in what sense you mean "geography." Finally, many features are both social and geographic. For example, "holy places" are social and are sites for social interaction, but they are also distributed over space and their location helps us understand the movement of people over space. This is just one example. There is no clear boundary between social and geographic features. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could the definition also extend to using "society" itself as the first part?

I do not know what you mean since (1) you have not provided a definition and (2) you haven's specified all its parts and (3) you haven't explained why society should be in the first part or any other part. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Would the term "culture of Greece" fit into the first example, and the term, "Greek culture" fit into the second example?

What is the first example, and what is the second example? As far as I can tell, these are two different grammatical constructions that mean exactly the same thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If the word "society" is used as the controlling first part of the definition, then how is "culture" different from other types of societies, whatever they may be?

I cannot answer this question until we agree on the different types of societies. Moreover, I do not think "culture" describes any "type" of society. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, what is the difference between Greek culture and Greek society?

It depends on whom you ask, but a typical answer would be: Greek culture refers to symbolic structures and values that orient Greeks in their social interactions. Greek society refers to the groups of Greek people, the roles Greek people may occupy, and the institutions in which Greek people participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is good. (Greek culture vs. Greek society) I would like to see this in the article. Seventhpower 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Could the term "patterns" found in a geography textbook be used along with or instead of the word "features?"

How can one answer this question without being provided specific examples of patterns and features, as well as the given definitions of patterns and features? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1962 World Book encyclopedia article on "civilization" indicates that civilization is one type of culture. This viewpoint would be different from using the two terms as synonyms.

In principle, I think it is a very bad method to research an encyclopedia article by looking at other encyclopedias. Above I recommended to you some good sources that are far more authoritative than the World Book Encyclopedia. Why not refer to them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you read and compared a few encyclopedia articles, and drawn conclusions about those articles? It seems like comparison is part of the editing process. (I'm not really motivated to read other encyclopedias, so I take your word for it.) Seventhpower 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Would this mean that 'Greek culture' is a broader term and 'Greek civilization' is a more narrow term or sub-classification?

Seventhpower 05:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly civilization is more specific than culture. Its etymology (from Latin civitas) suggests a level of organization that, for example, most hunter-gatherer societies do not have. Also, while one can refer to subcultures within a larger culture, I can't really imagine anyone claiming that there could be a sub-civilization. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In the 1962 World Book Encyclopedia, there is no separate article on society. It says to see culture. This would be an example of using the terms as synonyms.

In Webster's New World Dictionary 1970, the definition of society refers primarily to people, but it includes a reference to societies of animals and plants also. This definition would lend support to the idea of including all living things in a very broad concept of culture, not just people.

Again, I think it is bad practice to rely on a dictionary for writing an encyclopedia article. Read actual books and articles on culture written by experts who study culture. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For the definiton of the term culture, the same dictionary uses the term "given people" rather than "society", supporting a human basis. It also qualifies the given people as being in a "given period." This particular definition would designate and identify societies on the basis of time periods. It does not mention 'spatial' characteristics such as location or geography as an identifier. Would this indicate that the term 'German culture' could be associated with German people as a social unit both inside the geographical political division of Germany and outside of it?

As the different aspects of the definition are worked through, just based on a few sections of this article, without any background in the social sciences, it is becoming evident that the introductory comments on culture are not coming across as an integrated whole. Visually, the reader would expect the paragraph to have a topic sentence and supporting ideas.

This is what one would expect from a journal article or book that is expressing the argument of one author, or set of authors. But encyclopedia articles ought not to represent the arguments of one or a few authors. On the contrary, Wikipedia articles should not reflect the views of its authors. Look at the article on "race" -- a word that has many different meanings some of which have changed over time. Such an article will be written in a different style, one that lays out different views and explains why different people hold different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Until that can be worked up, it might help to visually separate the variety of concepts, since the subject is so complicated, and already we have the same word used to describe both the entity and its collection of characteristics. Maybe someone with writing experience could work on it.

Seventhpower 04:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, maybe the problem lies with what the reader may expect from the expression "human activity." Implicitly, the reader may expect to be able to substitute the term "human activity" for the term "culture" anytime it is encountered and derive a more coherent and in-depth understanding of what to look for in the communication.

How does this sound:

The culture of Japan. vs. The human activity of Japan.

The Japanese Culture. vs. The Japanese Human Activity.

That doesn't make any sense.

It should not make sense. If words or phrases were exact synonyms, there would be no need for different words or phrases; it would be redundant. If "culture" just meant "human activity" we would simply not need the word culture. We would just use the phrase human activity. Thus, culture means something else. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How could this be improved?

The culture of Japan. vs. The features of society relating to human activity found in Japan.

The Japanese Culture. vs. The features of Japanese society relating to human activity.

Seventhpower 13:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The reader might have trouble visualizing how to use 'culture' in a sentence using the definitions given in the introduction. Could someone use cuture/human activity in a sentence? Also, culture/human-capacity-to-classify.

Perhaps it would make more sense to use all of the various meanings of 'culture' (explained in the article) in sentences, with specific examples, in the introduction. It is starting to appear that the particular meanings can be revealed more in the context of what is written rather than in formal definitions. Would this technique lend itself to unifying the variations of meaning into a paragraph that flows well and gives an overall picture, which can then be broken down into the various categories following, while allowing the reader to see how each subsequent category fits into the whole picture?

You seem to be mixing up "meaning" with "definition" with "usage" with"description." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Is it the reader or the wording of the article? Seventhpower 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of times the verb or grammatical structure indicates which meaning is implied. If definitions are plugged into the wrong context, then the sentence doesn't make any sense. What verbs are typically used with the term 'culture' which show variations in meaning, yet contribute to the one concept of culture that this article represents?

study cultures/societies - Egyptian, Brazilian

research culture/way of life - Hopi, Cherokee

acquire culture/customs - one's own

learn culture/ - immigrants

observe culture/patterns - costume

etc.

Someone with a background in this could make a list and someone with writing experience could weave them together into a nice descriptive introduction.

Seventhpower 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Civilization

The phrase 'world view' is used in the section on civilization, but then there is a section on 'world view' which follows. This may be confusing to some.

Seventhpower 04:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In the sentence on culture vs. cultures, is this a split infinitive and would it preserve the meaning to not split it?

"tend not to use it" vs. "tend to not use it."

Seventhpower 04:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Characteristics

KNOWLEDGE Can it be said that cultures/societies can be designated or identified in various ways, without debating the particular ways? For example, they can be identified by one or more of the following: proper name, country, time period, particular features.

COMPREHENSION Likewise, can it be said that cultures/societies can be understood in various ways? For example, through observation, research, or education.

APPLICATION Can it be said that people apply their knowledge and comprehension of culture in various ways?

ANALYSIS Can it be said that cultures/societies and culture/features can be analyzed in various ways? For example traits, elements, varieties, comparison, classification.

SYNTHESIS Can it be said that knowledge, understanding and analysis of culture can form the basis for 'synthesis?' For example the formation of theories about human activity.

EVALUATION Can it be said that cultures and culture can be evaluated and judged, again, without debating the particular ways of doing that?

List is from "Writers Inc., A Guide to Writing, Thinking, & Learning", chart on Thinking Operations.

(Sorry about the 'style.' I'll get there eventually)

Seventhpower 05:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Culture as patterns of Products and Activities

Re: Statement, "(Some people confuse culture with the society that has a particular culture.)"

What would be several examples of this? Are there any examples in the article itself?

Why do you imagine that people have this confusion?

What percentage of readers of the article would you expect to have this confusion?

How would that affect the interpretation of what is read, if they could not visualize the different interpretation that the writer intended?

Seventhpower 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Article Organization

I just noticed the "contents page" and realized that there are four subsections under the "Definitions" section. When reading these subsections, I had no idea they were supposed to be within the Definitions section. I was only considering the introduction with the quotes to be a complete section on Definitions. I am so sorry, but visually I couldn't tell.

It first comes across that most of the article is organized on a chronology of the word 'Culture.' What are other possibilities for sequencing the material? For example, from simple to complex, for younger readers.

The terms 'definition, theories, and human activity' are grouped together in the general introduction and also in the introduction to Definitions, but the reader may not know which of these to anticipate first when approaching what comes next. It might be helpful to create guided mental images to tie these all together. People well-versed in the subject may have lots of images to rely on, but some readers might think that Mediterranean cultures are the same as Mediterranean countries, way of life is the same as life style, and human activity means going to the gym.

For some not familiar with terms and usage, they may have to pick out random words that they can easily visualize and come up with distorted ideas of what is trying to be said. I'm sorry, but when I see the very first sentence with a Latin definition which includes 'cultivate,' I see a plow and the back of my Grandfather's mule. And when I see 'Culture as Civilization' I see 'Villages as Cities,' in spite of the fact that I have read the section several times.

71.253.134.119 04:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Seventhpower 03:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Examples

What would be 3-6 classic examples of ‘human activity’ relating to basic human needs? Cooking, sewing, building a house, making a boat, making pottery, weaving?

What would be 3-6 classic examples of ‘human activity’ relating to the geographical environment? Making a fire, mining, damming up a river?

Examples relating to human environment? Conversation, school, voting, war, ceremonies

What would be 3-6 classic examples of non-material ‘human activity?’ painting, singing, dancing?

Classic examples of symbols (anthropology)? Writing, measurement, mapping, accounting, laws, calendars?

Seventhpower 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Theory

How is the term 'theory' used when talking about culture? How does it compare to the Scientific Method? Is there raw data, observation, hypotheses, testing, variables, conclusions, laws? Can the reader pick out some of these elements from the texts in the Definitions and classify them as data, observation or conclusion?

Seventhpower 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do different difinitions of culture reflect different theories? Why don't they reflect the databases or the observations that give rise to the theories? Is this just a convention and an issue beyond the scope of this article? It seems to me that you first have to define what you are going to study or theorize about, then define what you are going to observe or have observed, before getting to a theory. Isn't the concept of theory in culture only a part of a method or process, similar to the Scientific Method?

Seventhpower 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

DATABASE -- SOCIAL UNITS

I have collected all the words from the definitions that refer to 'social units.' Is there a word for this aspect of culture and does it deserve its own paragraph:

societies, political powers, colonies, social classes nationalists, empires, ethnic minorities, ethnic groups, human beings, literate & nonliterate societies, nomadic & sedentary societies, smaller societies, age groups, gender groups, households, descent groups social regions, racial groups, ethnic groups, social classes, corporate cultures

DATABASE -- CULTURAL TRAITS

I have collected all the words from the definitions that I thought refer to cultural traits. Is this accurate and does it deserve its own paragraph:

knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, capabilities and habits acquired by man spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs thought and communication, elite goods and activities, racism, symbolic thinking, social learning, teaching artifacts, myths, rituals, tools, design of housing, planning of villages,material culture, symbolic culture, human activity, symbolic systems, cultural bounds, rituals, invention, innovation, migration, slavery Values, norms, expectations, sanctions, artifacts social interaction, material objects, consumption goods, production processes, social relationships products and activities, patterns, domination, resistance

Seventhpower 04:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Symbols

Could someone do a paragraph to expand on the statement in the introduction about classifying experiences... and communicating them using symbols. Seventhpower 22:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

i'll give it a shot. It happens to be research i'm neck deep in anyway. ~FreddieResearch

Thanks for the contribution.

Do these symbols include intangible symbols as well, such as spoken language, music, song, dance, drama, etc.? Is the emphasis more on individual creative expression, utility, tradition or official symbols? Is there an emphasis on the concept of 'saving' information over a period of time, as in written law codes, to prevent the rules from changing?

Seventhpower 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What readers look for

There are three elements in writing an article: Understanding the material, understanding the reader, and getting it across. When trying to understand the material of any subject, it is logical to approach it chronologically. It is logical to start with the atom and end with the universe in science. It is logical to start with prehistory and end with yesterday's news in history. It is logical to think that a child has to be able to read, write and do math before studying physics. But a two-year-old can do a sink/float experiment or do a magnetic/nonmagnetic experiment without being able to talk. So there is the viewpoint of the teacher and the viewpoint of the student or reader. A class of 25 children can walk into a museum cultural display and randomly go from station to station and learn something valuable. The information is presented in parallel form.

I am not suggesting that an encyclopedia article should be a children's book or a handbook on cultural displays and projects, but I am just showing the various ways that an article of this type might be used and benefitted from.

Rather than give my personal opinion, I have found one resource which reflects massive amounts of research in the U.S. on the subject of young children and briefly mentions what information educators would look for in an encyclopedia article on culture. There is an online book of national childcare standards called, "Caring for Our Children."

Using the index to look for references, I found the following: demonstrate cultural competence, cultural diversity, cultural expectations (potty training), cultural groups, cultural sensitivity. And "provide cultural curricula that engages children and teaches multicultural learning activities."

In the National Association for the Education of Young Children accreditation standards, the preschools are expected to "provide varied opportunities and materials to build their understanding... of diversity in culture."

Personally, I can relate to studying the history of different subjects. I studied the history of calendars, history of drama, history of language, history of math, etc, while the children wandered around making forts in the woods. In order to save time, I resorted to checking out children's books from the library in order to get a quick overview on the essence of a subject, that was lacking in the encyclopedia or textbooks. If all else fails, you can find a website on jokes of the subject to get a really condensed bird's eye view of something. I couldn't teach a subject until I 'got it.'

At first, beginning with a Latin definition and ending with theory in this article came across as a connotation of exclusivity, almost an 'old boys club.' Latin is for law and medicine. 'Those who enter these gates must know Latin.' But the more I read and reread this article, the more I could identify with the need to study the subject chronologically, and the more I could appreciate the massive amount of research that this must have entailed. I understand that the more you get into a subject, the more you abstract the information in order to keep adding to the understanding of it. It takes an outsider to give feed-back on what is coming across. I am only one reader out of thousands, but hopefully my comments will help. The writers of this article are doing an awesome job. Absolutely awesome.

Seventhpower 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of this long comment?

~~ Thanks for your feedback. I am still trying to get used to online discussions.

I think this article should be more user-friendly for children and teachers.  

I think it should start with a paragraph listing various ‘social units’ that we think of in relation to culture, such as countries, communities, ethnic groups, families, etc.

I think the second paragraph should list objects that reveal ‘characteristics’ of various cultures in order to visualize the concept. “We can learn about cultures from many things, such as flags, stamps, maps, costumes, literature, art, and music.” etc.

I think the third paragraph should give examples of ‘human activities’ that are typical to the study of a culture, such as pottery-making, weaving, building houses, festivals, transportation, etc.

I think the fourth paragraph should help a reader visualize how to learn about the culture of one particular ‘example’ of a social unit or country. “We can learn about the culture of one country by studying cultural traits such as flags, costumes, art, language, customs, games and food.” etc.

I think the fifth paragraph should show how to visualize the ‘organization’ of cultures. “In some cultures, the work of the people is based on tradition. Parents may teach children how to make baskets, just as their parents taught them.” etc.

I think the sixth paragraph should demonstrate the ‘dynamics’ involved in cultures. “When people move to a new country, they learn a new language. They learn to eat new foods.” etc.

I think the seventh paragraph should show how we can ‘apply’ our knowledge of culture in various ways. “If someone living in the U. S. can speak Spanish because they were born in Mexico, then they would make a good translator. Someone born in Russia may be successful in starting a Russian restaurant in the U. S.” etc.

I feel that after scanning an article something like this, children could quickly find things around the house to make a shadow box for a homework assignment on culture. Or a teacher could quickly gather things together for a display at a learning station in a preschool. Or parents could quickly figure out things to bring in for school displays.

I myself made a list similar to this, and one of the parents in the preschool said, “Oh, OK.” and proceeded to bring in things each week for the rest of the year. One week she brought in examples of transportation, using toys, etc, that she found around the house. Another time she brought in beautiful costumes and artifacts from Pakistan, where she was from. This was in the U. S.

Seventhpower 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep talking about what children will want from an article. Perhaps this would all be far more relevant to Wikijunior than to Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

Culture can also be viewed from the perspective of science. Then it can be simply defined as 'a way of life' or a 'lifestyle'. Actually, different scientist study about various species, for e.g. ants. We don't know that ants have civilization or not. But again scientist refer to them as 'ant cultures'. It is something characteristic of the way the ant species live...

Human and primate cultures are studied by scientists called anthropologists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. I my argument was more kind of trying to say that culture need not be something always refering to human activity. To put it simple in concept, it s just a way of life. I referred to a World Book Encyclopedia article related to the same subject. It is and old publication though! Check out the 1990 edition, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 4, Ci:1186. The Article was written by Prof Paul Bohannan, Professor Emritus of Anthropology, University of Southern California. Hope this helps. :-)Arun. T Jayapal | Talk--Arun T Jayapal 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Analysis-- Synthesis

I have attempted to roughly group some of the concepts in each definition into the categories mentioned in previous comments. The process was fascinating and the results were revealing.

The concept for doing this came from a book called the Montessori Elementary Curriculum. The idea is to take each element of a subject and study some examples. Then take one example and study each element. For example, study bird size, bird diets, bird habitats, etc. Then take one bird and study the color, calls, reproductive habits, etc.

The following very rough clustering gives me just enough of a framework to visualize how a person could write an article on the culture of waiters in a restaurant, for example. The social unit would be the customers, the application would be tips.

Or analyze the chronology of contributions to this article as it relates to brain hemispheres, as another example. The cultured/uncultured concept would bring to mind linear thinking, while the idea that all people have culture would bring to mind wholistic thinking, etc. I don't want to get off track with creative writing essays.

Identity: Social units

human beings, gender groups, age groups, households, racial groups, ethnic groups, societies, literate & nonliterate societies, nomadic & sedentary societies, descent groups, social classes, corporate cultures, social regions, nations, political powers, empires, colonies,

Characteristics: Human activity

environment, artifacts, material culture, economic goods, activities, ways of living together, lifestyles, technology, knowledge, language, art, literature, traditions, customs, morals, value systems, beliefs, religion, symbols, emotions, ideologies, social characteristics, laws, patterns

Organization: Place

chaos, anarchy, nature, values, sanctions, norms, boundaries, civilization, culture, worldview, empire, colony, subcultures, heterogenous, multiculturalism, cultural associations, cultural identity, identity politics

Processes: Time

uncultured, evolution, adaptation, invention, innovation, becoming civilized, becoming cultured, social cultivation, cultural change, communication, education, propagation, tourism, cultural studies

Dynamics: Energy

diffusion, transculturation, acculturation, diffusion of innovation, migration, colonial expansion, slavery, economic systems, domination, resistance, symbolic systems in their role of creating predictable and controllable conditions, assimilation

Application: Direction

become more civilized, more cultured, set standards of refinement, measure all groups, express natural & authentic way of life, nationalist movements, nationalist struggles, racism, observations, comparisons, similarities, differences, patterns, meaning, expression, interpretation of symbols, context, cultural relativism, values, norms, expectations, laws, communication, control, predictability, change, improvement, preservation of ways, construct cultural identity

Note: I have no intention of contributing to the article itself. Comments are feedback of one reader. Seventhpower 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I probably won't be joining this discussion in the future. Other contributors have my consent to edit, summarize or delete my comments in the future as other topics come to focus. Have a good day. Thanks all.

Seventhpower 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

merge question

The Culture of human beings was created recently, presumably by someone who did not take the time to read this article. This article is detailed and provides many verifiable sources. I am opposed to merging any material from the CHB article into this one, as none of it is sourced, it looks like original research or speculation. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this topic handled with WikiProject_Culture? I thought larger-than-one-article topics are what Wikiprojects were for. (To keep article discussion pages to a reasonable length and decide on how to split and merge subtopics, etc.) CQ 09:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

help!

Anyone who has this page on their watchlist, can you go to Virago? A who is putting forward notions of racial and identifying them with a notion of gender-difference, and I are in a conflict. Fundamentally, I believe he is a racist' his claims about race contradict everything I have read by physical and cultural anthropologists and as far as I can tell, his claims about gender at best seriously distort the literature.

You can see the difference here [1]

On the talk page, start here [2], and then just read the whole debate.

Comments from others needed. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cultures of the World

I've created an article to catalogue and do a general summary of cultures of the world. Please contribute.--Culturesoftheworld 18:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

neutrality

"In practice, culture referred to élite goods and activities such as haute cuisine, high fashion or haute couture, museum-caliber art and classical music, and the word cultured described people who knew about, and took part in, these activities. For example, someone who used 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might argue that classical music "is" more refined than music produced by working-class people such as punk rock or than the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia." Someone has a cip on their shoulder.--80.42.154.255 13:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

moved the Values section near top to address your point. --Ancheta Wis 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Thankyou!--80.42.150.59 12:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has a chip on their shoulder; what is quoted above is a verifiable fact: some people have used and continue to use the word this way. Others do not. Why is there a neutrality warning for this article? Unless there is a compelling POV problem, I will remove the tag. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Loss of main page status

This used to be considered an important enough concept to merit main page status. I encourage all those concerned to work this out. Please use this talk page to raise the issues and concerns. Perhaps we can get on the main page again. SLR, it appears that it would be alright to rem the tag if no one responds by raising their concerns on this page. --Ancheta Wis 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement -- please support your views here. If you believe that an article should be tagged, then give the reason. Otherwise, the tag is of little help for improving the article. Thus, anyone who felt differently could simply remove the tag, as its presence would have been proven to be unjustified.

When culture was originally given main page status as a category, it referred to culture as in popular or high culture. As the Portal:Culture has evolved it is more to do with ethnography and such, which is or can be well covered by Portal:Society (which was originally intended to be social sciences. So since Portal:Art covers the intent better (there will be far more searches for works of art, literature, etc. than ethnic groups), I bumped it. dml 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

dml, I do not disagree with the bumping. So be it. What I am still trying to accomplish is a clean page for a fundamental concept, which is that cultural values actually motivate human action. That concept would get buried in the society page, which includes groups of people, whereas a person acting for his own honor or for wealth, or in search of truth is acting as an individual. BTW, cats/ portals/ overviews haven't done too badly have they? They are now on many pages. Congratulations. --Ancheta Wis 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I do not believe this article ever presented culture as popular or high - I believe it presented that way of talking about culture as one point of view and presented other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture from 'colere' or 'cultus'??

I have here in Boorstin's The Discoverers an alternate etymological origin for 'culture'. He claims, in his section on Tylor called "A Science of Culture" that 'culture' comes from the Latin 'cultus' meaning 'worship'. He says the word "originally meant reverential homage". It then became, Boorstin says, a word employed to describe the cultivation of soil. Any thoughts? -FreddieResearch

My source was Raymond Williams Keywords. Could you check OED too? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)