Talk:Culture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Science/technology is part of culture

I've been thinking about culture, and it seems that science and technology are a very important part of culture, and therefore must be included when explaining the concept of culture. These two figure prominently in any given culture's "value systems, traditions, and beliefs." Does anybody else think this article should have information about science or technology as part of culture? Oh, and see this [1]. It says "science is culture" on the title bar. See? I must be right :) --JianLi 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The selection of headings under "Belief Systems" is strange. Why this grouping: Abrahamic religions, Eastern religion and philosophy, Folk religions, The American Dream, and Marriage? The first three are transnational groups of religions, the fourth is a secular cultural value attributed to Americans but arguably applicable to other cultures, and the fifth is a specific social institution. And at the top of the section are passages about the roots of Western Culture and the differences between East and West. What's the theme here?

How about clearing out the stuff at the top (maybe putting it elsewhere), having a section about "Belief Systems" in terms of religious and secular worldviews -- including Humanism and even Socialism, and then having a section about Science & Technology? I'll rough out a section below, cribbing from the existing article, Humanism, and Science.

---Belief Systems--- Main article: Religion

Religion and other belief systems are often integral to a culture. Religion, from the Latin religare, meaning "to bind fast", is a feature of cultures throughout human history. The Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion defines religion in the following way:

   ... an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality.

Religion often codifies behavior, such as with the 10 Commandments of Christianity or the five precepts of Buddhism. Sometimes it is involved with government, as in a theocracy. It also influences arts.

(Then skip straight to the headings of Abrahamic religions, Eastern religion and philosophy, Folk religions, deleting the others. Then add, from Humanism:)

--Humanism-- Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

---Science and Technology--- Main article: Science A culture's material artifacts and beliefs about the world depend partly on science. Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Science provides both rational, testable explanations of reality and the practical knowledge to create technology, which in some cultures heavily influences all aspects of life. Because religious belief systems tend to claim authority based on faith and tradition while science demands evidence and logic, the two sometimes come into conflict, although it is not at all universally agreed whether this conflict is necessary.-Kris Schnee 08:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what we need to do is follow out ATT policy and NPOV policy and instead of present our own views on science, look at how people who study culture - enthropologists (and sociologists) look at this stuff. They certainly include science. Paul Rabinow recently wrote an important book on the topic. And there is the classic ethnography by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life - we should be incorporating the views of these published authors, not our own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture of Film

I deleted the section "Culture of Film". If we include this section, we could as might as well include any other subculture. In my opinion, it has absolutely no importance to the article. -Wutschwlllm 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Artistic culture verses concrete culture: Polar opposites.

Informational lead...

The term 'culture' has two polar opposite meanings, one abstract, or artistic and the other concrete or traditional. (Source encyclopedia of philosophy? )

It is important to realize that 'culture' is a term with two meanings, a half-truth.

While the artisitic represents a fantasy, the concrete represents reality, and the two can be one.

Just a lead, I hope to get back and continue this, when time permits.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research lead...

To better understand the 'term' the word, it can be black, ie a culture of death or white, a culture of life, and all the colors in between.

For example: A culture of death, a subculture, can promote abortion, drugs, etc, that lead to death and all the related elements of 'culture' a general sense will promote this specific end.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Wangari Maathai on Culture

It belongs to this site here according to my perception, but I don't know where exactly: [2]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.190 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Green Friends The 'Green Friends' project initiated by Amma in India encourages this very attitude of love and reverence towards Mother Nature.

Can love and reverence towards mother earth be part of human culture?

-- 88.72.10.11 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Information on Cultural Barriers

Requesting information regarding the nature of cultural barriers. KyuuA4 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A, possible, "improved" definition of "Culture".

Culture - the accumulated stock of understandings and practices by which a given people live and maintain themselves in a given Society.

--Stuart Ewen, "The Marriage between Culture and Commerce".

A chapter in "All Consuming Immages" which served as the source for an award-winning Public Television Series, "The Public Mind".

Stuart Ewen is Distinguished Professor in the Dept. of Film and Media Studies and Director of the MFA Program in Integrated Media Arts at Hunter College.

76.180.25.65 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It has a nice easy-to-understand tone, but I don't know that I would agree that it is an "improved" definition. For one thing, it begs the question of the difference between a "culture" and a "society." For another, it is rather simplistic. It reads as though it was developed for a TV audience (even if it was a PBS audience) ;-) Sunray 06:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all anthropologists would reject the claim that culture exists within a given society. The definition is just wrong, and it is hard for me to believe that any serious scholar who studies culture for a living uses it. If a media artist wants to use it, fine, but it's useless for actual research Slrubenstein | Talk 10:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

article of concern

would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tylor's definition

I hardly see how Edward Tylor could have written his definition of culture in 1971, as he died in 1917. The date is problematic as it gives a false notion of currency to the definition, which is definitely not the case. Also, adding any contribution by Tylor, a social Darwinist in all respects, without qualification is notoriusly inadequate IMO.Rinkelli 7 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1871 Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural change - colored photograph

I wonder how could the photograph been taken in 1913 or even 1931 or 1951! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gorskii_04412u.jpg

I agree. It looks fishy. Can someone investigate this? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some information to the caption which I hope resolves the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)