Culture a definition & introduction

Culture a definition & introduction

What is Culture?

Culture is not an easily defined concept, nor is there universal agreement as to what exactly the concept should include. Here, we are going to explore some of the broad-ranging issues that exist about the concept of culture

Look in any pre-1960s [e.g. Websters] Dictionary - and you will find a definition of culture which states that, it is associated with: "1. The cultivation of soil. 2. The raising, improvement, or development of some plant, animal or product".

The word itself derives from the ancient Latin word cultura, which means "cultivation" or "tending,"; its entrance into the English language is dated at 1430 (Oxford English Dictionary).

Within the last 40 years a very different definition has become popular: Culture - has come to mean: "the training, development, and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners".

Therefore a more modern definition like that from an upto date and comprehensive English Dictionary, will offer a primary definition of culture, which is substantially different. Culture is now:

"The totality of socially transmitted behaviour-patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought."

Why such a difference?

The use of the word "culture" has been heavily influenced by the academic fields of sociology, cultural anthropology and cultural studies. These have effectively brought what was once a minor definition of culture into mainstream thought.

Culture itself can be seen [among many other things] as a collective body of preferred ideals and learned behaviour common to any given human society.

Cultural norms are offered as templates (in that society nurtures and recommends certain types of behaviour). Culture acts to shape and pass on behaviour, consciousness and ways of thinking from generation to generation.

Our cultural heritage, [its wider influences and our personal experiences of it] resides in all of our thoughts, actions and learned behaviour.

So what does culture actually consist of what are the building blocks of culture? A basic schema can break it down into the following categories:

A key characteristic of culture, is that it is a system of meaning with language being the key, primary constituent of this. This system of meaning organises society from kinship groups to states and multi-national corporations.

Several important principles follow from this definition of culture:

The way we absorb culture is a learned process. Because this is an essential characteristic of culture, the way that culture is taught is also a crucial characteristic. The way it is taught and reproduced is itself an important element of culture.

Many qualities of human life are transmitted genetically e.g. a babys desire for food is triggered by physiological characteristics - determined within the human genetic code.

However, an adult's desire for tea, coffee, chocolate etc. cannot be explained genetically; rather, it is a learned (cultural) taste.

Because people learn culture - the relationship between what is taught and what is learned is never totally predictable or absolute, as a result of this, culture exists in a constant state of change.

Cultural meaning systems consist of negotiated agreements - members of a human society or group must agree on the relationships between a word, behaviour, or other symbol - and its corresponding significance or meaning. [Can you think of any examples of sub-cultural meaning systems?]

Cultural meaning systems involve relationships which are not essential and universal, for example words have no essential connection to that which they signify - we simply agree that the word should have the meaning that we ascribe to it.

Different human societies agree upon different relationships and meanings: culture is therefore relative to the people/societies that share the meaning [there is no universal truth to a societies cultural norms.

Can you think of any cultural acts/norms that may seem strange to our social expectations?

Culture and Kissing:Kissing is one of the most complex interpersonal behaviours human cultures display. It can signify many things, such as intimacy, affection, romance etc. The following is a brief examination of kissing - where it arguably comes from and what it has come to signify:

Where did the process [and meaning] of the "kiss" originate?

One popular anthropological theory suggests that kissing derives from a much older practice called "premastication". Premastication is where an adult (frequently a mother), chews food and then transfers the soft food into the mouth of an infant or young child.

Modern, industrialized cultures have developed soft, enriched baby foods that are readily available. It is easy to imagine how premastication could lead to what we know today as the maternal kiss between a mother and child.

The process of premastication may also, in some cultures, have influenced the development of the "romantic kiss."

In the Ziller Valley of Central Europe, for example, the exchange of premasticated tobacco between a male and a female continues to be a popular romantic gesture. (Wickler. 1974)

The young man would let a tip of the piece of [tobacco] show between his closed teeth and invite the girl to grasp it with her teeth - which of course obliged her to press her mouth firmly on that of the young man - and pull it out. If a girl accepted the wad of premasticated tobacco, it meant she returned the boy's love. (ibid: 242)

Another theory is that the act of kissing arose from various gestures symbolizing the fusion or union of souls, where individuals bring their faces together in a gesture of spiritual union.

For example, North American Indians believed that the exhaled breath was part of the soul; therefore, bringing one's mouth close to that of a fellow represented the intermingling of the souls.

This is a clear antecedent of the "nose kiss," popularly attributed to the Eskimos. By bringing their faces together, two individuals exchange their breaths in a sort of spiritual union.

Here we have two alternative explanations: one based on the practical processes of exchanging food, the other a purely symbolic act expressing soulful union. [Can you think of any additions or alternatives to these?]

Cultural meanings of the kiss

People who share a common culture also share a common system of meaning by which they interpret social behaviours. Those from similar cultural backgrounds can expect to share similar notions of what certain behaviours mean.

For example, there are certain types of kissing in western culture, that most people would agree upon and understand:

Parent/child kissing: This is among the most common forms of kissing - light, fast, and with pursed lips. This gesture is easily recognized as an act of love and affection. The symbolism changes dramatically if an adult/child kiss is too long or intense.

Friends/family kissing (the social kiss): A quick kiss on the cheek or lips between family members or close friends - an easily recognizable and interpretable cultural sign which conveys affection and love.

The ceremonial kiss: Particularly common in European countries (France, for example); Heads of state or other dignitaries offer a ceremonial kiss upon meeting. Moving beyond social symbolism to a political symbolism, signifying goodwill on the part of both parties.

The erotic kiss: The Romans were among the first to adopt and document this particular behaviour, but its history goes back further still. [As far as our own use is concerned nuff said].

The main cultural point to be made here, is that kissing - like many learned behaviours - is an important aspect of culture, because of the significant meanings we attach to it.

It can be innocent or erotic, relaxing or intense, the many variations of kissing are behaviours that people from a common culture can easily interpret in similar ways.

Can you think of any form or context of kissing that would go against our cultural norms?

Wickler, W. (1974) Sexual Code: Social Behaviour of Animals and Men. Weidenfeld.

Early Symbolic Interactionism & Culture

The Chicago school

Most early theories of crime located the sources either within the individual [psychology] or wider society functionalism & Marxism. In the U.S. in the 1920s & 1930s - a new theoretical shift emerged that challenged the previous traditional explanations.

This new approach placed a new emphasis on the cultural causes of crime [environment community organisation], and how this affected personal bonds within the community setting

The development of this particular emphasis was initially instigated by the Chicago School who placed particular emphasis on the process of the developing City of Chicago.

Chicago expanded from having 4,100 residents in 1833 to having over 2,000,000 in 1910 [rapid urban expansion].

The majority of people moving to Chicago were waves of immigrants, displaced farm-workers and Blacks fleeing the rural south.

Ghettos, slums segregated communities, poverty and unemployment characterised many of the new and varied urban sections of Chicago.

One of the first influential theorists in developing the Chicago school was Robert Park [a journalist-turned-sociologist]. The main thrust of his argument was that the City is like any other ecological system: Its development is patterned and inter-linked to basic processes, these are:

Invasion

Conflict

Accommodation

Assimilation

He argued [by incorporating the above principles] that when certain influences act upon bodies of people this produces effects - the immediate and experienced culture is effected.

Developing this idea Shaw & Mckay went out into the City to study it [& carry out real research] in order to assess the validity of Burgesss Concentric Zone theory.

They discovered that the level of stability and coherent cultural norms of neighbourhood organisation is instrumental in preventing (or permitting) deviant activity/careers.

For detailed discussion/analysis of history & development of Chicago School see: Clair Valier - The Progressive Movement & Crime in Chicago, J. Robert Lilly Rejecting Individualism: The Social Roots of Crime, and sections 1 to 3.5 in Muncie & McLaughlin- Dangerous Places: Crime and the City. (This one is particularly good for UK relevance.)

Burgesss Concentric Zone theory consists of the following five zones:

1. The Loop

2. Zone in transition

3. Zone of working mens homes

4. Residential zone

5. Commuters zone

[1] The loop is at the centre of the sphere and consists of commercial businesses

[2] It was the second (the Zone in Transition) that was of particular interest for the Chicago School as it consisted of an influx of waves of immigrants and other migrants too poor to live anywhere else.

[3] The third zone consists of working mens homes and is made up of low-price high-rise tenements where the lower socio-economic groups reside

[4] Zone four is the residential zone is where the more affluent (middle classes) begin to reside; and the

[5] Fifth zone is the commuters zone, where the wealthy reside in sprawling leafy suburbs.

Shaw & McKay and Zone 2:

The zone of transition was the focus of their analysis, and they pointed out issues such as:

The accommodation of the deteriorating tenements was owned by slum-lords and was the least desirable living area. Pressures from the expanding business area [loop] created constant disruption, instability and change as it attempted to creep into zone 2.

Shaw & McKay argued that as far as the Zone in Transition was concerned, the disruptive social factors resulted in communal disintegration and resultantly weakened family ties and other community bonds [informal social control] this resulted in social disorganisation.

A lack of existence of a coherent meaning system, and no cultural norms to root people in to certain boundaries - in their every day existence results in disorganisation.

According to the Chicagoans, this is why the inner-city suffered from high crime levels especially juvenile delinquency.

Most importantly Shaw & Mckay argued that the high levels of delinquency carried out by the youths [in zone 2] could only be understood by considering the following social-cultural contexts [or influences] within zone 2:

Major and constant societal transformations

Rapid urbanisation

Unbridled industrialisation

Massive population shifts [no ties established]

Lack of informal social control

How could a stable and cohesive culture have alleviated these problems?

For the seminar group to re-cap on main aspects of Symbolic Interactionism.

Summarise into main points how the Interactionists might attempt to explain the:

Role of

Need for

Culture.

PAGE 10