Just wondering what culture means to people.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), April 03, 2000

Answers

Divide society into two parts, feminine and masculine. The state is the masculine, the culture is the feminine. A state is the *formal* mind and structure (body) of a society. A culture is the heart, the movements, (e)motion. Hierarchically speaking, the emotive, spirited, intimate and subjective culture is both lower and higher than the hard objective formality of the state. Organized culture is religion, not necessarily theistic.

If we define society as the whole of human community, then divisions into state and culture is the first and most overarching. [Just as left and right divisions are the first, or most obvious, physiological categories of our brains internal structure.]

But just as the brain has a myriad of divisions and interrelated internal structures, so does society. I've found these subjects a fascinating topic of inquiry for quite a while. And charmingly, I've found that the more one sees both the similarities and differences among large complex systems, the more questions that are raised as well as answers. The line of inquiry down which you now walk is more than a lifetime's entertainment.

So, now it's my turn:

How have you developed such a rare interest?

What do you think of my analysis above?

What are your thoughts on the subject? Have you already come to similar conclusions? If you agree or disagree with what I wrote, then why?

There is great deal more detail to explore if you wish. Also, there are a large number of perspectives from which to approach systems of this magnitude. Lead on in any direction desired.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 03, 2000.

Tim, you addressed Ma Kettle with your questions, but I'd like to jump in too.

First, though, I'd like to know where you derive your philosophy of state/culture as you stated above.

Second, please be more specific with your statement "The state is the masculine, the culture is the feminine." Expand on that more. Why have you chosen masculine for state, and feminine for culture?

Your view as stated above is very different than mine, i.e., I don't categorize society into two boxes such as state and culture, although both are two major aspects of it. And I percieve it as detracting from the original question, which was "what is culture?".

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 03, 2000.

>> What is culture? <<

First, drop the idea that "culture" is anything you find noble or edifying. That is not a very scientific idea.

I will attempt to define "culture" as an anthropologist wold define it. If there are any bona-fide anthropologists out there, I would invite them to rectify my errors.

"Culture" is any body of knowledge that is passed from one generation to the next, that is not embodied in genetics. This includes (but is not limited to) language, myths, values, religion, sports, and arts. It is anything that is general to a society, but not inherent in the DNA of its members.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 03, 2000.

Chris:

Thank you for the response.

I derive my 'philosophy' from observation and contemplative reflection. Although I've had a hand from almost every philosophical or contemplative tradition on earth. The last 2500 years or so of the western intellectual tradition has been helpful, but not exclusively so.

You asked why I use categories and distinctions to express ideas. Are ideas not categories and distinctions? Admittedly, reality is more than just a cold hard assortment of locked categorical cells, but I do seem to observe that reality [or our perception of it] is at least partially dependent upon relatively hard, unchanging, objective facts.

However, I gather from your tone that you are just as leery as I am at assigning too much credit to 'mere' objective definition. Do you feel as I do that subjectivity, will, and the essentially unknowable infinity of complex movement [non-linear, chaotic events] have perhaps an equally important role to play? An unequal role?

You asked why I assigned culture the feminine label. Very very good question. That would depend just what the feminine is [unless there is no such thing as feminine or femininity, in which case femininity means nothing, or nothingness].

How's this: I'm choosing to define the right, the masculine, as that which tends toward the unchanging or the hard or the unmoving in any complex or simple system. I'm also choosing here to define the left, the feminine, as the flexible, adaptive, moving element in any complex or simple system.

Here, now, I leave aside the issue of whether these categories have independent existence outside of my choosing to create [or re-create] and apply them to the matter at hand.

I'm making and using these distinctions, myself, merely to clarify the issue at hand. If my distictions are poorly chosen then they will provide an inviting basis for further progress.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

Tim, I'm wondering about culture because I'm trying to understand what mine is as an American. I have thought for years that the meaning of culture was that is was the way or ways in which the activities of life were carried out by a particular people in a particular place under particular circumstances which made that people and their culture specific rather than general, with similarities to other peoples and cultures but with differences as well. I have thought that culture was that method that developed over a period of time and that culture was dependent upon economics. I have not thought of it as having a masculine or feminine aspect but I can see that analogy because I think culture has a visible quality as well as an intangible, aesthetic one. I'm trying to learn what others think about the definition of culture and if there is a common culture that we share. I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist, just a rather irregular sort of person who wonders about irregular stuff. More later, thanks for input.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), April 04, 2000.

Brian:

Does this mean that if 'culture' is not taught inter-generationally that it then doesn't exist? Is it not possible for a group to have a culture among themselves, say a streetgang, that acts to bond and unify them regardess of whether they have an opportunity to 'pass it on'?

I think you're essentially defining culture as technique, method. Do you work in technology? Engineering background? I would rather say that culture is like a party, its the ways in which we entertain, inspire, bond, even love.

Technique, that which is taught, trained, conditioned. It is rather more related to the formal status, and state of things, I'd think.

Culture is shared, not applied. Caught, not taught. A social movement is a culture. It spreads, contagiously. Science is a formal technique. It does not spread spontaneously, easily, instead requiring long hours of hard disciplined, rigourous, effort.

Culture is what we want, what we love. It gains in force merely by our pursuit of it. It's how we recreate; how we forget ourselves. Examples are found ranging from the culture of professional wrestling and the drug culture to Mozart's Opera's and the sincere or intense worship of the faithful.

Technique, on the other hand, is what we strive to remember, apply, pass on. We develop techniques inorder to deal with crises, shortages, demands. Necessity is the mother of both memory and technique in general. But culture, and the arts in general, are born of leisure, passion, playfulness and ease. A society perpetually at war will have a larger and well developed state, but will be retarded artistically, culturally, and creatively. The opposite is true of societies developed in a period of ease or leisure. Even an examination of the differing generations of American society illustrates this. Those who developed socially during the 60's have one set of values. Those who were raised during the great depression and WWII have another.

What do you think? Am I wrong? Just *exactly* where and how?

Who's right? Who's wrong? I have no idea. The more I learn, the more I realize just how infinitely complex this world is. But what **is** important is that we develop the techniques of rigourous and sustained inquiry into the dynamics of large complex systems. Whether we agree or disagree, by our discussion we require one another to probe, question, and even further develop our analytical methods.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

Ma Kettle:

Definitional vogues come and go. I suppose I'm always either ahead or behind all of them to some degree.

What you [and Brian, perhaps] termed culture, I called society. I did that because society seemed to me to be a human community at its most general. The way we usually use these words, one could say that a society has a culture; but we don't usually think of a culture as having a society.

So I use society to refer to a community, or human grouping in general, before any finer distinctions are drawn.

I'll go back and try to answer your question more satisfactory. Thank you for your clarification.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

Ma Kettle and Brian:

As you can see above, I draw a distinction between the terms society and culture.

What then, is a society? Well, perhaps any type of community, in the larger sense of the word, is a society.

Really though, you're question seems to be, "What make's societies different, distict?"

Organization. Organization is basically sorting and separating. Societies 'organize' themselves to create barriers and separations between themselves and everythingelse. Just as I organize and separate the letters and words on this page so that I can get something done -- likemakingmyselfeasilyunderstood. Without separation between various elements, confusion and disorder occur.

Culture, like pop music, defies boundaries, overcoming the barriers of organization, to make us all unified sharers in a common passion. Culture is what makes societies the same. Exactly opposite the formal functioning of state or in*statu*tional organs.

I may have seemingly gone afield here. Let me be more concrete:

What makes America different from, say Britan? Organization. Different government. Different ruling elite. Different ethnic mix. Different television channels.

What makes us the same? Common cultural elements. The Beatles. Beethoven. Bible. Beer.

What **specifically** do I think has made American society different or even exceptional in comparison to the world in general?

I'll even go so far as to say that these are the things that I believe make us great:

#1) Egalitarian organization of government and institutions. Our constitution assigns us all equality under the law regardless of race, class, nationality or religion.

#2) Cultural freedom. Our government is organized to **not** interfer with the free expression of speech (the arts, etc...) or the free expression of religion.

#3) Ethnic and cultural diversity. We reflect the world more than any other nation on earth. There is something mighty, if occasionally fearful, in that.

#4) State and institutional unity. We fought our bloodiest war to preserve it. Most Americans may not realize this, but we're tighter as a nation state than almost every nation on earth.

#5) The Western tradion. We've inherited from Europe [esp Britan] the most developed scientific, artistic, financial and governmental techniques in the world.

#6) Piety. We are by far the most sincerly faithful and religious country in the developed world. There is great power in that.

#7) Respect for the rule of Law. An ancient obsession of Germanic peoples-- who form the ethinic basis of our population.

#8) Inspiration. Call it Magnaminity of Spirit. Or 'The Vision Thing'. May sound corny but Americans embrace more than other societies. We reject neither tradition nor progress, faith nor doubt, rich nor poor, neighhbor nor stranger, God nor humanity, right nor left.

Frankly, I think we just embrace much more of life than most other societies could even hope to.

Well, I see that I've opened up so many potential political issues that I'll have little hope of returning to the original examination without some serious help. Oh well. The balls in your court now. Where do we go next? Back to the serene and lofty heights of DEEP THOUGHT or down to the tumultuous, intense realm of politics?

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

That's Britain darnit! It's almost 3:00 am here, and I'm a weak speller to begin with....8-Q

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 04, 2000.

Chris, read the post on death, which is close to this one.

"A sufficient measure of civilization is the influence of good women." Ralph Waldo Emerson

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 04, 2000.

Tim, thanks for elaborating, I'll get back to this thread and try to write a cogent reply.

Gilda, I'm limited in time today and I got pretty involved in the "beastiality" thread already, but I plan to read the "death" one as well (gosh! this forum can really get interesting discussions going huh? Too many such threads today and too little time.)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

In answer to the many inquiries about the finer implications of my definition of culture: first attempts at a definition for a complex entity are invariably wrong.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 04, 2000.

Brian, what about broadening your initial attempt at defining culture, to instead encompass any shared interest or outlook. (Maybe this in turn is too broad?)

Tim, you had said, Frankly, I think we just embrace much more of life than most other societies could even hope to.

Indeed. Both affluence and ethnic diversity offer many dimensions for cultures to come into being.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 04, 2000.

Ma Kettle asks what culture is, or means to people.

Brian gave the anthropologist definition, and Ma Kettle as well as Tim pointed out the "micro-cultures" (cultures within a culture, or society), as well. The word "culture" then can be said to be yet another umbrella term, and Brian's definition would be this broader and more vage definition, hence why it can mean different things to different people.

With this in mind, I'll parse Tim's replies and attempt to make sense (I'm not as good of a writer nor of a debater as Tim or Brian or Flint, I'm just a wannabe, but I try 8-) )

"Does this mean that if 'culture' is not taught inter-generationally that it then doesn't exist? Is it not possible for a group to have a culture among themselves, say a streetgang, that acts to bond and unify them regardess of whether they have an opportunity to 'pass it on'? "

Yes it is possible, but as I said, this would be a culture within a culture.

" I think you're essentially defining culture as technique, method. Do you work in technology? Engineering background? I would rather say that culture is like a party, its the ways in which we entertain, inspire, bond, even love. "

For an example of the broader meaning of culture, lets use Native American's. They have passed on for thousands of years their culture using "techniques", i.e., how to hunt, how to build their teepees, how to make close from their catches etc., all without books. They also have passed on their spiritual beliefs through word of mouth; through story telling and songs, as well as what you talk about, the ways in which they entertained, inspired, bonded and loved.

" Technique, that which is taught, trained, conditioned. It is rather more related to the formal status, and state of things, I'd think. Culture is shared, not applied. Caught, not taught. A social movement is a culture. It spreads, contagiously. Science is a formal technique. It does not spread spontaneously, easily, instead requiring long hours of hard disciplined, rigourous, effort. "

Technique is indeed more related to the formal status of culture, but inherent and that culture as well. Without techniques, (teaching, training, conditioning), a culture would not last through generations. Our Indian as example would not have lasted as a culture. Unless you use the word "society" where I use the word "culture", your argument does not stand. Now then, what is the meaning of the word society? And what is the meaning of word culture?

Looking them up in the web version of Webster's Dictionary I get this:

Society:

1 : companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY 2 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession 3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests 4 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity b : a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners.

So here then, your argument for "street-gang culture" is being validated, but under the term "society".

I enter culture and I get this:

1 : CULTIVATION, TILLAGE 2 : the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education 3 : expert care and training 4 a : enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b : acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills 5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation.

And here, Brian's and my argument for teaching and techniques to pass on the culture from generation to generations is being validated.

It seems to me then Tim, that your whole argument was from the start based on a misunderstanding or misuse of the terms society and culture.

As I'm writing this now, it seems pointless for me to continue on responding to your replies as was my original intent when I wrote the first sentence of this reply. And as I read over my opening statement, I see that I myself made the same kind of mistake, by defining "micro-culture" as what should really have been called "societies" or "micro-societies". That's what I get for doing research as I write, then post the results anyway ;-)

As for your categorization of state and culture into masculine and feminine labels, I accept your explanation and have no beef with it, although I did find it rather curious that you'd chose such labeling. But as you've explained, it turns out rather flatering for us of the feminine persuasion, and so I'll take it as a compliment and just sneak out of here quietly ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.

I looked to the unabridged addition of the Random House Dictionary of the English language when I first started pondering about culture and began to suspect that many of us had a shared mis-definition? even a partial definition of 'culture' and that other words are used interchangeably in conversation about culture such as the words 'society' and even the word 'civilization,' --in fact, probably so frequently as to blur the many nuances of the meanings of the word/thought in discussion, 'culture.' I appreciate Chris' response for further clarification. Also I want to add the definition as per the Random House edition I mentioned above. There seems to be some differences even between reference texts.

cul-ture,-n.1. the quality in a person or society that arises from an interest in and acquaintance with what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits,etc. 2.that which is excellent in arts, manners, scholarly pursuits,etc. 3.a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture. 4.Sociol. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. 5. Biol.a. the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria,or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use,etc. b. the product or growth resulting from such cultivation. 6. the act or practice of cultivating the soil:tillage. 7. the raising of plants or animals,esp. with a view to their improvement. 8. the product or growth resulting from such cultivation. 9. development or improvement of the mind by education or training. v.t.10. to subject to culture;cultivate

I sometimes think how amazing it is that we can understand and communicate to each other at all. I appreciate the thoughts on the subject. I have a fuller understanding of the word culture and of its meaning to others.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), April 05, 2000.

I like #5:

Biol. a. the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc. b. the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.

Kinda summs it up for me...

<:)))=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.

Chris:

I'm glad that my characteration of culture (as I used the term) isn't seen as unflattering. The vital creative, and recreative, life of a society is certainly no less essential to its existence than its formal institutions or organizations. This fact is often lost in current academia. Modern scholarship seems to have had a difficult time dealing these more 'feminine' aspects of society since the early 1800's --or so it seems to me. [I've been helped in this by the comparatively broader reach of my study.]

Oddly, the currently strong influence that feminist scholarship has on campus has done little to amend this. I believe this is due to the heavy reliance of these writers on 19th century scholarship and 'weltanschauung'. Even though the current scholarship is a direct reaction to the nationalist and sometimes racist scholarship of the preceeding century, we have still allowed that work to not only define what 'modern scholarship' is, but what the 'facts' are, for much of this century. Luckily, there is good scholarship on every campus, but in the humanities it can only be found among academics who have little interest in politicizing or pandering in their work -- a minority, but a sizable one.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 06, 2000.

Chris:

I agree. Culture is *preserved* through technique and organization [Like formal religion]. In this sense its certainly fair to say that culture 'has' organization or is oranized. [In fact, I'd say that everything that is, that exists to any degree at all, has *some* organization or formal structure.]

I'm simply distinguishing between the teaching or preservation of a culture and the culture itself. We need not make this distiction for all purposes. In doing so here I felt it more clearly brought my point to relief.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), April 06, 2000.