I wanted to comment on a bit of the discussion about culture that took place recently in the Trump thread, and it seemed like it might be interesting enough to warrant a thread. So, for example, consider these posts (I've snipped a few posts to highlight the parts that I'm interested in):

One of the things that I found striking about some of these exchanges is the different meanings of the word "culture." Is culture mostly the kind of thing we have in mind when we say someone is "cultured" -- operas and symphonies as Tom has it? Many of the posts are focused on various forms of art as culture.

But then patteeu (in a post I didn't grab) mentioned tolerance and pluralism as cultural traits. And though I don't think he's elaborated, I expect WaitingForMPJ has in mind something more like this type of culture (norms of belief and behavior) than styles of expression, when he mentions Saudi Arabia. The same is likely true for adios' response.

The problem of course is that "culture" is a very general term for an enormously complex set of interrelated concepts. So all of the examples given are certainly examples of culture, and it's not surprising that people use the term in different ways. But the net effect for me was that it seemed like people were talking past each other. So for example, one of the responses to the argument about cultural traits being better or worse was to ask about the hijab, which seems aimed at a definition of culture more focused on expression. But again I doubt that's what WaitingForMPJ had in mind.

My goal then isn't really to insist on a definition of culture. If I open one of the intro-level cultural anthropology textbooks I have sitting around I notice that in the chapter on culture there's a table with no less than 10 different theories of culture, each with its own definition.

But I do think in the context of political arguments, it makes sense to think about concepts of culture that are broader than definitions of art. Culture is not only what art we make, what food we eat, what clothes we wear. It's probably just that those are very easy areas in which to observe cultural differences, and particularly cultural differences that are easy to treat relativistially, where "good" and "bad" would seem like merely ethnocentric judgements. I think if those are the only things we take as "culture" than we're being too shallow.

On the other hand, the problem on the other end of the spectrum -- insisting too stridently on certain value judgements about different cultures -- falls too easily into the kind of over-reificiation of "cultural differences" as a justification for bigotry. I'm not keen on that either. The one view is too shallow because it ignores the real anthropological importance of enculturation in explanations of human behavior, relevant to politics. The other view is too shallow because it ignores the enormous complexity and variability of human culture in favor of stereotypes and prejudice.

So, how could we begin to think about culture in a way that's not too shallow in either direction? The topic is still too big to sum up in a forum post. But, borrowing from cultural anthropology again, I wanted to highlight a few of the conceptual categories normally used to think about culture. Here's one short-non-definition from the same textbook:

In elaborating "rules and guiding principles," social scientists will generally refer to the following categories: values, norms, and traditions, all of which are expressed in various symbols and specific symbolic language.

In elaborating how culture is learned and transmitted it's necessary to think about the roles of various social institutions, and here "institution" doesn't just refer to formal organizations, but more broadly shared patterns of behavior -- for example "the institution of marriage" encompasses a large body of patterned beliefs and behavior, rather than just a specific organization that regulates who can form relationships.

So, I think, when someone says there are better and worse cultural traits, they are probably not referring to the idea that some styles of art are morally preferable to others. Clearly values, norms, and institutions are fundamental elements of politics, and we all argue with each other here because we have strong disagreements about those things. This way of thinking about culture is why I think it's wrong to say, for example, that the US has no culture. But, it should also be obvious that cultural contentions are as important within societies as between them (as adios' picture illustrates), which is why I also think we should be careful about overly reductive arguments about the superiority of one culture over another.

If it can be said, the culture of a society is related to man's thinking (spiritual)/cognitive abilities.

Included are the aspects of education, science, religion, medicine, music, art, and generally that to which the individual man can stand within his self existent being.

The above are to be discriminated from that in which man deals with his fellow man or the rights sphere or that of equality under the law. We are all equal under the law as the ideal but certainly some have a greater knowledge and activity in science as others and likewise that of the first aspect of human character.

Equality is not contained within the first sphere nor should it be assumed that we can produce this by fiat.

The third sphere of the social is better known as the sphere of economics. In this arena we are living within the realm of instincts, will-laden instinctual behavior. This doesn't mean that thinking is not present in the economic sphere but that the guarantees of the evening meal is fraught with insecurity much like the ancient peoples would have grain in a silo for years of lean.

Likewise "equality" in the third sphere is illusory and actually calls for a coordination of men in order to insure and protect the human being from the vicissitudes of economic life.

And so, in this third sphere the ideal should be a "fraternity" of men working within the body of the nation as apposed to a "competition" of men .

The three spheres are again:

1) Spiritual/cognitive (thinking/ cognitive) or "cultural sphere"

2) Rights or equality under law

3) Economic

It should be apparent that nations may differ in the above but the western cultural ethos of Europe/America is much broader than nation specific for in this we have, obviously, the great men who can be clarified in our libraries , museums and the symphony halls of yesteryear and today. This is too broad as there are so many that I will offer some specificity; Beethoven and of course Bach and a personal favorite Chopin.

It's been a very, very long time since I've grunched a thread but I'm gonna grunch this based on the thread title alone:


"culture" is just a dogwhistle for racist dickheads who think they can copy-paste the fourteen words and then hit Ctrl+H to replace "race" with "culture" and fool everybody. Just a heads-up here: you guys aren't actually fooling anyone other than WN and chez --just so y'all know. Like, no one who graduated from college and isn't actively enabling white supremacy is falling for any of this ****.

I mean, JFC right out the gate with the "cognitive abilities" ****, are you guys even trying?

C'mon, Trolly, tell us what you REALLY think. Stop beating around the bush.

Yes.

Since your post is more of an incoherent rant than an argument, I may not be following your "point."( Your "point" might be just to be a total jerk to derail what could be a fruitful discussion, but who knows?)

I found a delightful website called newyorklatinculture.com where they promote Latin-themed parades and such. The website says, "show pride in our heritage and share our culture with your children."

Sounds good to me! Mr. Trolly, is this an example of "racist dickheads " run amok?

Culture is obviously a massive term, and I never expect people to agree on it fully.

However, when I teach the term I usually define it as "predictors of behavior in a population or group". In this sense then yes culture can be opinions, attitudes, emotional responses, learned responses and whatnot, but culture in this sense tells you something about how people act and what they will actually do. This makes culture very observable, which makes it easier to grasp.

Then I show them a picture of parking lot with neatly marked spaces with the subtitle "laws and norms", then I show a picture of a parking lot with no cars inside the lines subtitled "culture". Cue polite laughter.

And yes, culture is obviously a massive term that goes way beyond my explanation. But an analogy can be a coffee maker. We don't need to be fully aware of all its intricacies and designs to discuss the coffee that comes out of it.

Exactly. It's a magic talisman against the overbearing PC police. If you just say black culture is a lazy ****** then no one can credibly accuse you of being racist

Black American Culture

Quote:

African-American culture, also known as Black American culture, refers to the contributions of African Americans to the culture of the United States, either as part of or distinct from mainstream American culture. The distinct identity of African-American culture is rooted in the historical experience of the African-American people, including the Middle Passage. The culture is both distinct and enormously influential on American and global worldwide culture as a whole.

African-American culture is rooted in the blend between the cultures of West and Central Africa and the Anglo-Celtic culture that has influenced and modified its development in the American South. Understanding its identity within the culture of the United States it is, in the anthropological sense, conscious of its origins as largely a blend of West and Central African cultures. Although slavery greatly restricted the ability of African Americans to practice their original cultural traditions, many practices, values and beliefs survived, and over time have modified and/or blended with European cultures and other cultures such as that of Native Americans. African-American identity was established during the slavery period, producing a dynamic culture that has had and continues to have a profound impact on American culture as a whole, as well as that of the broader world.[1]

This wiki article is a dog whistle then? Amazing how just mentioning the topic of culture triggers some folks.

Then we have this:

Gun Culture

Quote:

The term gun culture in the United States encompasses the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs about firearms and their usage by civilians. Gun ownership in the United States is constitutionally protected by the United States Bill of Rights. Firearms are widely used in the United States of America for self-defense, hunting, and recreational uses, such as target shooting. Gun politics in the United States tends to be polarized between advocates of gun rights, often conservative, and those who support stricter gun control, often liberal. The gun culture of the United States can be considered unique among developed countries in terms of the large number of firearms owned by civilians, generally permissive regulations, and high levels of gun violence.[1]

Dog whistle here or is this actually a thing?


Wiki on white culture.
White Culture

Quote:

Culture
From their earliest presence in North America, White Americans have contributed literature, art, cinema, religion, agricultural skills, foods, science and technology, fashion and clothing styles, music, language, legal system, political system, and social and technological innovation to American culture. White American culture derived its earliest influences from English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish settlers and is quantitatively the largest proportion of American culture.[64] The overall American culture reflects White American culture. The culture has been developing since long before the United States formed a separate country. Much of American culture shows influences from English culture. Colonial ties to Great Britain spread the English language, legal system and other cultural attributes.[65]

Dog whistle no doubt.


Then we have this.

Multiculturalism

Quote:

The Monument to Multiculturalism in Toronto, Canada. Four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, South Africa; in Changchun, China; in Sarajevo, Bosnia and in Sydney, Australia.
The term multiculturalism has a range of meanings within the contexts of sociology, of political philosophy, and of colloquial use. In sociology and in everyday usage, it is a synonym for "ethnic pluralism", with the two terms often used interchangeably, for example, a cultural pluralism[1] in which various ethnic groups collaborate and enter into a dialogue with one another without having to sacrifice their particular identities. It can describe a mixed ethnic community area where multiple cultural traditions exist (such as New York City) or a single country within which they do (such as Switzerland, Belgium or Russia). Groups associated with an aboriginal or autochthonous ethnic group and foreigner ethnic groups are often the focus.

In reference to sociology, multiculturalism is the end-state of either a natural or artificial process (for example: legally-controlled immigration) and occurs on either a large national scale or on a smaller scale within a nation's communities. On a smaller scale this can occur artificially when a jurisdiction is established or expanded by amalgamating areas with two or more different cultures (e.g. French Canada and English Canada). On a large scale, it can occur as a result of either legal or illegal migration to and from different jurisdictions around the world (for example, Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain by Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the 5th century or the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, Africans and Asians since the 16th century).

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely.[2] It has been described as a "salad bowl" and as a "cultural mosaic",[3] in contrast to a "melting pot".[4]

Everybody here except you and your dickhead friend Tom seem to be trying.

You guys are very trying.

Thank you for highlighting exactly my objection. In your determination to reduce everything to racism and put everyone in small boxes you're forced to deny stuff that really matters.

Culture is important and the differences in culture are to be valued. It cannot be allowed to become a victim of your need to call people names.

It doesn't take a lot to realize that culture exists.

Go to a different nation and you'll likely find different habits, food, fashion, hobbies, traditions, and this list could probably go on for an entire book. Go to a sufficiently different culture and the experience can so complete that it is hard to find things you recognize and you can find yourself feeling completely alien.

Culture might be a meta-expression, in that it covers a multitude of aspects and isn't in itself "one thing". It might also be a term that can be misused, but I don't see why that is somehow special. The list of terms that can be misused is very long, probably far longer than the list of terms that can't. That isn't an argument against those terms, it's an argument for using them better.

I'm actually gonna defend Dickhead Trolly here. His username reveals that most of the time he's not serious, but is TROLLING. If we understand he amuses himself with blatantly stupid posts, we can just smile, roll our eyes , and move on to the pertinent posts in the thread.

when germs and other microbes grow in a petri dish. that's approximately the same as america.

Trolly is conflating the question of whether culture exists with the question of whether the right tries to cover up its racism by referring to culture rather than race. The answer to the latter question is clearly yes. But that says nothing about the answer to the former question.

I think it would be hard to spend six months in Los Angeles and then six months in Bhutan without feeling like you had been exposed to two different cultures, however you want to define the term.

What aspect of my post made you so defensive?

Regarding the bolded: well said!

Hi, Trolly.

I have trouble analyzing rants, because it's hard for me to separate the actual argument you're making from the hyperbole.

There were two very thoughtful posts prior to yours, which you didn't even attempt to address. I guess since maybe you think you're smarter than Carlo andWell Named that you can "grunch" passed their insights and go off on a rant.

I get grunching a lengthy thread, but there were literally TWO posts in the thread before yours, as I recall. Kinda disrespectful to not even read the OP, in my opinion.

In the modern political realm "culture" seems only ever to be used as a cudgel against the oppressed. Esoteric sociological debates are all well and good but cutting through that to accurately and succinctly describe 'X as practiced' is also valuable.

I'm not sure that trolly is conflating as much as he is just reacting to the thread title without reading the OP. In any case, despite his claims to the contrary, I agree that cultural racism deserves to be called out as such, when it occurs as just lazily reconstituted biological racism, which is often enough.

As a general comment, I didn't actually mean for this thread to be only (or mostly) about racism, although it seems clear that ethnocentrism is pretty inevitably going to come up in a politically oriented conversation about culture.

Mostly I made the OP because I think it's interesting to see people with relatively educated takes on politics treat culture in a superficial way. I think part of that is a reaction against cultural racism, but I doubt the best antidote to racist takes about cultural differences is to disavow the existence of non-superficial cultural differences. So my motivation in asking the question is to try to find better ways of thinking about culture.

I agree with you, with the slight caveat that I think that your first sentence is an over-generalization, though basically accurate.

If Trolly had actually said what you just said, everything would have been kewl.