Talk:Culture theory

Untitled

I am the author of the h2g2 page. I assert that portions of it may be used on Wikipedia. Theanthrope

I think Larry Sanger will have real problems with "Culture is what makes humans people. " -- Tarquin 19:55 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

You still have to address the NPOV issues,

I'll remove some of the more contentious statements. In the meantime, feel free to edit this page. Theanthrope

With all due respect, I think you are misunderstanding our advice (if I can presume to speak for Netesq). Don't remove statements because they are contentious -- remove statements that are yours. We are writing an encyclopedia and we have to be careful to keep our own point of view (as such) out of articles. Instead, we have to provide accurate and balanced accounts of the state of knowledge concerning various phenomena. There are in fact many contentious debates among cultural theorists, and this article should provide an account of them. What you need to do is not remove contentious claims, but identify and situate them (for example, "in the 1960s cultural ecologists and cultural relativists were divided over issue x, the former contending (or advocating) y, the latter, z" or something like that. Slrubenstein

I echo Slrubenstein's sentiments. To wit, I agree with most of the sentiments that you (Theanthrope) expressed in re culture theory, but there are other points of view which deserve equal time. -- NetEsq 20:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

i take issue with: "Even reproduction is arguably learned rather than instinctive." -- there are cases of residents of care homes whose learning disabilities were very severe, yet who managed to pair up and produce offspring. -- Tarquin

I revised the first four paragraphs. I cut this -- I think from the third paragraph

They rarely stop to consider what is a universal norm and what can be attributed to cultural norms.

because it is unclear who "they" are. If it refers to anthropologists, I flat out disagree. Most anthropologists would say "they" refers to regular people, but even this claim is contentious. Slrubenstein

I was revising the content to refer to the majority view of anthropologists, and I accidentally left "they" as a vestigial reference to the layperson's viewpoint. In the context of laypersons, I don't see the assertion as being that contentious, but neither is it relevant. *Doh!* -- NetEsq 23:00 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the four bullet points needs reconsideration -- I'd like others to weigh in. My primary objection is: I do not see what the difference is between "learned" and "extragenetic transmission;" these are either the same thing, or if there is a difference, an overly simplistic way of parsing a more complex issue. Slrubenstein

Learned means someone figured it out without any help, and without relying on instinct. Extragenetic transmission means they then taught it to someone else rather than passing it on through natural selection. Theanthrope

Well, as I thought, the four bullet points may not be the best way to parse something complex. I think the core issue is that humans think symbolically (for a variety of reasons this is a better way of putting it than "abstractly," although I grant the two concepts are close. But there is a lot at stake when it comes to understanding 19th century debates about diffeences between languages; something can be more or less abstract, but something is or is not symbolic); symbolic thought is tied to both "extragenetic transmission" and creativity -- and I think what you call "learned" is really better understood as "creative." That, it seems to me, is the key point, not that someone came up with it "on their own." Although I am sure that some things in human history were purely individual inventions, it really is unlikely (especially given that we are social beings and constantly interacting socially and learning from one another) that most inventions were figured out without anyone else's help. Capitalist myth celebrates entrepeneurs and innovators, but good histories of technology reveal that what were once thought of as individual inventions in fact did rely on the inspiration and help of others. Slrubenstein

The four bullet points would better be phrased as an ordered list, as there is a heirarchy to them. As is shown in the examples that follow, the successive stages are difficult to acheive without first acheiving the preceding ones. You can't teach something you haven't learned. The firstpoint is not about whether individuals or groups figure it out, or the implicit reinforcement of capitalist myths. It's about 'figuring out' rather than doing something instinctively. Not only humans do this. I think further explanation should go in the respective section, and the four points should stay. Theanthrope

I understand -- I am suggesting a different hierarchy conceptually: symbolic thinking (a product of human evolution) should come first. It makes possible complex social organization; social learning; and creativity. But historically, the idea of a hierarchy is a bad idea because neither evolution nor human development works in ordered stages (first comes learning, then comes abstraction, then comes extragenetic transmission, then comes the manufacture of artifacts). Human social behavior, symbolic thinking, inventiveness, social learning all co-evolved in a feed-back loop. Moreover, children are born into a social environment... Slrubenstein

I agree that the stages of the heirarchy are not distinct. I also think we should apply this lack of distinction to the species that are mentioned in this article, in terms of their capacity for cultural behavior. In other words, it seems you would ascribe symbolic thinking only to humans. Dogs too, however, can "get it" and not urinate inside any house. Learned is the more general term. If we limit ourselves early on in the article, we may find that the definitions don't apply later on. I agree that human children do not experience those stages in order, and humans in general have not done so for many millennia. The four points seek rather to describe a cline of cultural behavor across across the range of species that exhibit it. Theanthrope

Well, I think your last statement clears up some things -- and it is a good example of what I meant to say about NPOV yesterday. There are a number of ways to parse these elements, depending on what your purpose is. The article should not present one series of elements as if all anthropologists agree on them. It must make clear that if your purpose is to describe a cline of behavior et., this is one way people parse the elements of culture, but if your purpose is x or y, there are other ways of parsing it (since you have a clearer idea of what you mean, can you work on this in the article?).

By the way, I am not sure any other species is capable of full symbolic behavior, see The Symbolic Species (Terence Deacon) which uses a very specific (Pierceian)notion of symbolic. Slrubenstein

But surely you must concede that other species are capable of learning. Indeed I will work on it. Theanthrope

I think symbolic transmission is an essential component of culture qua culture theory, and I think it's pretty clear that homo sapiens are the only species capable of symbolic thinking and symbolic communication. Attempts to teach human language to other primates (e.g., Koko) have demonstrated this, and (thus) this article should emphasize the unique nature of human language and thought. This article should also deal with concepts unique to culture/cultural anthropology, such as world view and kinship and descent. -- NetEsq 15:52 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

A few other things: Although I no longer have my notes or books from my class in culture theory, I distinctly remember reviewing the various schools of culture theory, including, e.g., structural functionalism, and the various founders/proponents of these schools, i.e., e.g., Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Kinsley Davis/Wilbert Moore. Correct me if I am wrong, but the four prong breakdown in this article is representative of one particular school of thought, although I can't pinpoint which one. In any event, each school of thought should be given equal time, beginning with the contributions of notable cultural anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislav Malinowski. (See also: Wikipedia:Anthropology_basic_topics.) -- NetEsq 16:57 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

Ok. Then we should add in the other schools of thought, rather than rephrase/replace.

This definition is far too narrow and human focused. The term "culture" is not owned by anthropologists alone in the sense that they use it. The argument that culture is only a human creation is obviously false. I and many other pack humans communicate with our dogs daily with verbal and visual symbols. Nor is the scientific community restricting the definition to human or even primate activity. For example: whales whales wolves

Wolves: culture is a concept reserved for humans. It involves behavior that is not only learned, but also shared by most members of the group, and then passed on to the next generation. Culture is one of the primary phenonmena distinguishing humans from other animals. We "do" culture; animals do not. Athana 16:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the writers of the article: You have a good start, here, I think. In addtion to adding alternate points of view, why not also add a simple definition of culture? Might make the article a little more accessible to the general reader. Athana 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the book The Nature of Technology should be cited here. It is completely irrelevant for the culture theory discussion. Where are thinkers like Boas, Levi-Strauss, Geertz, Ruth Benedict, Elias? While we dont have those, we should just erase something that doesn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.106.140.19 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with Cultural Theory of risk

I am a non-specialist. Can someone who knows what they are talking about sort out the confusion between this article (which is linked to Cultural theory) and the possibly unrelated article Cultural Theory of risk? If the two subjects do relate, then they should be linked in some way. If they do not, then I recommend setting up a disambiguation page to clear this up.Testbed (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text doesn't belong here?

This text below was recently substituted for the article by a new editor. It seems to relate to the article Cultural Theory of risk and that the editing mistakes could be the result of inexperience. So I have moved the contribution here in case another editor wants to comment/use - and posted this text to the talk page of Cultural Theory of risk as well.

GROUP / GRID THEORY

One branch of "cultural theory," known as "group / grid theory," seeks to operationalize the abstract notion of culture. As Mary Douglas has noted, the original aim of group / grid theory was to overcome the limitations of psychological explanations of human behavior and decision making. An emphasis is placed on social organization and norms over individual psyche. The central task of the theory is to plot the social relationship between ideas and moral norms, and social organization [1].

Cultural / grid theory begins with accessing social pressures and normative behavior. A continuum of social organization is plotted. On one hand there are low levels of social pressure on individuals. On the other hand, there are high levels of social pressure and rule-based governance. Grid theory addresses the intersection of social institutions, ideas and values. The object of analysis need not be a "culture" per se, but could include a wide range of possibilities. For example, one might apply cultural / grid theory to decision making in financial institutions, a convent, a military establishment or a hospital. A detailed, accessible course by Mary Douglas on Group / Grid Theory can be found at The Open Semiotics Resource Center.

http://www.semioticon.com. ttp://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/douglasoutline.pdf

Cultural Theory has developed in an interdisciplinary fashion. It has been been advanced by anthropologists, sociologists and semioticians, among others. --Duncan.thaw.lanark (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Testbed (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture theory. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123150543/http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/Papers.html to http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/Papers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]