Jim and Ecolog: I rather like Crants' definitions ". . . a society is a collection of interacting people with a group identity, and their culture is all the values, beliefs, and practices that they hold largely in common." I must have missed this definition in your earlier posts
Clearly, I have failed to make myself understood. I suspect that part of it may be an artifact of trying to respond to different responses at different times and pixels that pass in cyberspace, but I'll accept responsibility anyway. I'm sorry you had to go searching through other emails; now I'll have to do the same, as there are so many fragments--especially when the thread is not retained with the response, which would make reference to the previous message(s) that are referenced or relevant more convenient when following up. Perhaps it would be better to simply re-state the case, in the hope that I can clarify my own thinking as well as the literal chore of communicating them in a stream-of-consciousness manner, but that's all to the good--my errors will not be edited and I can have the benefit of y'all's spontaneous reactions. I'm learning a lot, and realizing great benefit from all of your responses. Jim, I lifted your definitions of culture and society right out of your text--I didn't summarize them in nearly identical terms (see your email of 7-13-10). Here is the part of the text from which I lifted them; I have placed the text I lifted in [[double-brackets]]: "Regarding your response to my post, it's clear that we're talking about different things when we talk about "culture." I've been writing with Merriam-Webster's fifth definition for culture in mind: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture. [[By this definition, pretty much any collection of humans with a group identity will have a culture.]] It's the definition people use when they talk about "corporate culture," "Trekkie culture," "pop culture," or "ancient Inca culture," and it's the one I assumed you were using when you said culture was a sociopathological phenomenon. "By "society," I was thinking of Merriam-Webster's third definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society. If you look at that definition, bearing in mind the definition of "culture" that I was thinking of, I hope you can see how it sounds absurd to call culture "sociopathological." To put it briefly, [[a society is a collection of people with a group identity]], and any such collection will inevitably have a culture, so what could it mean to say the culture is bad for society?" If this is incorrect, please let me know, and call my attention to the definitions that truly reflect your definitions. Maybe I lifted the wrong parts? Jim, you make an excellent point that all social animals have hierarchies, and I was not clear enough on that point. My contention is that culture is a pathological expression of social hierarchies. Social hierarchies tend to be based on the merits of the leader, and leaders remain so only as long as the merits that gave them their position exist; any primogeniture, for example, would genetic, not cultural (i.e., rule-based, as when the psychopath son of a king becomes king even though there are far more capable individuals in the group--social unit, if you will). Briefly, that's another way of expressing how I see the difference between cultural and purely social behavior. Social behavior (cooperation) is the originally adaptive behavior which initially permitted the species to survive; cultural behavior is the acquired "values, beliefs, and practices that they hold largely in common." It is culture that produces anti-social behavior and institutionalizes it. Some cultures are more social (cooperative) than others; others are more egocentric and competitive. This distinction is merely an observation; I have intentionally not loaded it with "values." I am not suggesting, within the confines of my assertion, that "we" "change" culture. I am suggesting that, by whatever labels, there are differences in, and consequences to, the two clearly discernable differences in behavior. However, some of the responses have asked, perhaps from some deep social intuition, perhaps as intellectual enquiry. "How do we change culture." "We," I believe, do not. The short proactive answer is to become more social and less egocentric, but that has to be an individual choice and one that is functional and feasible within a cultural context. But that is not part of this thread. In any case, I do not intend to suggest that we "go back" to hunting and gathering, but I will suggest that, if we truly are the "advanced" and "sapient" species we claim to be, we can find a way to reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life. I hope that human intelligence is up to the task, and that it gets going on it before we go the way of the passenger pigeon, taking other pigeons with us. Intuitively and intellectually, that seems related to the original question of "humans in the definition of the environment." WT PS: I'm nursing a back sprain and won't be able to spend a lot of time at the confuser, but please do point out any further errors or omissions; I will try to respond as quickly as possible to all comments. ----- Original Message ----- From: James Crants To: Wayne Tyson Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment Wayne, My aim was simply to dispute the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon. In doing so, it proved necessary to clarify that my definitions of "culture" and "society" are the conventional ones (and I cited Merriam-Webster to show what definitions I was using, which is not a case of the fallacy of appeal to authority). Even now, you apparently don't understand the definitions I'm using, since you summarized them in nearly identical terms, while I think the difference between culture and society is clear. To paraphrase what I said before, a society is a collection of interacting people with a group identity, and their culture is all the values, beliefs, and practices that they hold largely in common. Conflating the group with its shared ideas is like conflating the brain with the thoughts it produces. On the other hand, I admit that I have no idea how you define "culture" and "society." I went over each of your messages in this conversation, and all I could discern on the matter was that you found the conventional definitions too vague and that you turned to etymology to try to come up with something more precise. At one point, you apparently equate "culture" more or less with hierarchy, though since most or all social animals have hierarchies, this would still lead me to believe that culture is not optional for social animals like humans. (And if it's not optional, it can't be pathological; how can you identify a pathology independent of a contrasting state of health?) If you ever offered definitions, I've missed them entirely after two attempts. As to why I have not addressed "the specifics of [your] previous attempts to explain [your] suggested definitions for the two terms", I think it boils down to my initial intention to dispute only one statement in your argument and my inability to find either your definitions for the two terms or your attempts to explain these definitions (unless you count the post in which you tell us you turned to etymology to find clearer definitions, but I couldn't discern from that what definitions you might have arrived at). I can't address specifics I can't find. I'm also not clear on why you want clearer definitions for such widely-used terms in the first place. It's not as though people are going to confine their usage of a term to whatever more rigorous definition you come up with. If you really want to talk about something more specific (less vague) than culture and society, either find other words to do so, or don't be surprised when people start arguing with you as though you were using the conventional definitions. Finally, I do not agree that the status quo needs a strong defense when there is no well-supported idea challenging it. Issuing a poorly-supported challenge to conventional wisdom is like throwing a dart at a castle, for all the impact it's going to make. You won't be burned at the stake for it; you'll just be ignored. It wouldn't hurt to offer a clear alternative to the status quo, while you're at it, and a road map for arriving at that alternative state. Even if we all agree that culture is pathological, what do we do next? Do we immediately abandon whatever it is you call culture and go hunter-gatherer? Jim Crants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3004 - Release Date: 07/14/10 06:36:00
