Jim and Ecolog:
Yes, I grant that Crants' definition and mine are different. It's not that I disagree that much with Webster's definition as far as it goes; it's only that it is too vague and does not go to a fundamental difference in the human phenomenon; both words are defined the same way, "a society is a collection of people with a group identity," and a culture is "pretty much any collection of humans with a group identity" by Crants' own (and Webster's) statement. Crants has not addressed the specifics of my previous attempts to explain my suggested definitions for the two terms, giving them clear distinctions based in large part on their etymology, but more importantly upon the need for clear terminology that can be useful in describing crucial differences in actual phenomena, as previously described. While I welcome ANY criticism, I hope for the kind that addresses the specifics of my argument. Dictionaries reflect cultural usage, and I challenge conventional usage because it is confusing. It is not a "scientific" hypothesis, but it is a logical challenge to the status quo. This is always difficult, and it does challenge cultural norms; the question is, does it do so for good reasons? Appeals to authority are not, in of themselves, “scientific,” however welcome and relevant they may be. I cite the following authority (hilarious, eh?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority In any reasonable discourse, the burden falls equally upon the participants making assertions. Either the two phenomena described (pre-civilized human societies with a smaller cultural component or civilized--post "domestication" societies that morphed into cultures that are distinguished by the characteristics I have already cited) are distinctly different in significant degree, or there is no difference. "Corporate culture," "Trekkie culture," "pop culture," or "ancient Inca culture," can be termed true cultures, and all have a social component, but a relatively minor one, and all represent modes of behavior that are good examples of short-term success that sacrifices an enduring, resilient, society. In that sense, they are pathological because they undermine the welfare of the species more than they ensure it. Certainly it can be argued that they all contain components of behavior that might be considered "good," but the point is, "in what direction, in terms of the biological welfare of the species, do they influence that species' biological success?" The answer, of course, is mixed, and to prove it, we would have to examine all of the relevant particulars of each. But we can, temporarily, look at the fragmentary evidence and come to provisional conclusions concerning whether or not one or its approximate opposite is rather more true than untrue or more untrue than true. That's only a step, of course, and one subject to the assembly of data that support or refute on hypothesis or the other--or, discover an entirely new one to test. I do believe that any challenge to the status quo should have a strong theoretical foundation, but so must the status quo. If Crants really disagrees, I don't know what I can say to persuade him otherwise. I ask only that he explain why it does not. Just because a conception is firmly entrenched in the culture does not, in itself, validate it. The entrenched culture at one point in history, demanded that all agree that the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. A lot has been learned since Copernicus, and each succeeding theory remains open to challenge. Of course, many challenges fail, and that is as it should be--if they fail because the challenger was wrong and not because he or she was burned at the stake. Crants “pointed out that you can't have a society without a culture, which makes it impossible for culture to be pathological to society.” I assert that you can’t have a culture without society. I have already stated the basis for this claim, and I will be happy to address refutations that cite the claims and offer alternatives, with the same level of support demanded of the challenging claim. I am unable to reasonably respond to general statements unconnected to my statements. I do agree with Crants that “Certain attitudes or practices of a given culture may be harmful, but some kind of culture simply will be present wherever there is a society.” In group behaviors that stray too far from the mode that is successful, such as hoarding, group pressure tends to keep behaviors that tend to threaten group survival or welfare from getting out of hand. One might say that “derivatives” are “good” and “bad,” and it remains to be seen how demands for social responsibility and personal accumulation of wealth sort this out in our current culture. Swindlers are not tarred and feathered anymore, but some go to jail—if for no other reason than political window-dressing. I offer this only as one illustration among an infinite number, not in direct support of the assertion. I do not entirely disagree with Crants’ definition “. . . the group of people is the [society] and their common attitudes, beliefs, and practices are their culture” except that I don’t think his definition of society goes far enough. Social animals are cooperative animals (wolves, chimps, humans). Cultural components within the social structure are not predominant in the sense that they are in civilized human cultures. There are bosses, to be sure, and in that sense they are hierarchical and even coercive—but those components a spit in the ocean compared to the institutionalized, corporatized, self-destructive culture that has compounded itself so “successfully” that it has placed the species (not to mention others) in such a state of luxury consumption that a proportional or even a disproportional bust or significant degradation in the quality of life is largely a matter of where the curve actually ends up—unless the intelligence that made culture possible can manage to shift the balance from exploitation to a kind of frugal luxury that goes beyond the sales possibilities of “sustainability.” Thanks to all who have challenged my assertions; they have helped me to clarify them in my own mind if not those of others. I continue to welcome further criticisms. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: James Crants To: Wayne Tyson Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment 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? I do agree that culture has long progressed in the direction of isolating us from the rest of nature, so that an increasing number of humans can potentially get through life just fine imagining nature to be irrelevant to their interests. However, when you say that this progression toward isolation means culture is "by definition, pathological," you are essentially saying that culture must necessarily progress in that direction (if culture could reverse its pathological direction of progress, you couldn't say it was pathological by definition). But why can culture only advance toward greater isolation from nature? I don't agree that the alternative to calling culture a sociopathological phenomenon requires strong support. The alternative is simply that culture is not a sociopathological phenomenon; its effect on society is either good or neutral. This is a null hypothesis, and like any null hypothesis, it's a weak statement, and the only support it needs is the failure to confirm the alternative (in this case, your hypothesis). Further, I think the vast majority of us assume that culture is not bad for society, and any time you want to challenge a widely-held belief, the burden falls on you to make some sort of case for your position. If you can do so, that's when people might feel compelled to defend the status quo. Finally, I think I actually offered some pretty strong support to the null hypothesis/status quo position. I pointed out that you can't have a society without a culture, which makes it impossible for culture to be pathological to society. Certain attitudes or practices of a given culture may be harmful, but some kind of culture simply will be present wherever there is a society. I've just now received your response to Hedges. I think the definitions of culture and society that I've linked to above are distinct enough; the group of people is the soiciety, and their common attitudes, beliefs, and practices are their culture. If you have provided your definitions of culture and society, I've missed them. At any rate, I've already gone on much longer than I intended, so I will leave it to Jaimie Hedges (or someone else) to respond further. Jim Crants On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: Jim and Ecolog: There were humans in proximity with other humans in a predominantly cooperative/social rather than a predominately competitive/cultural state from the dawn of the species until the transformation of pre-civilized to civilized states of being, roughly beginning around 10,000-12,000 BCE. Humans before the "domestication" (enslavement?) of plants and animals had to cooperate to survive. In that state (although one could make a point that it began with tools) humans were more "in" the environment/Nature/ecosystem/nutrient cycle than "out" of it. As culture "advanced," humans increasingly were outside of Nature (I prefer this term to the others, except maybe nutrient-energy cycle), hence, culture is, by definition, pathological. Either one accepts that there are two distinctly different states of being or one doesn't; there's no way to "prove" that cultural humans are not "just another" manifestation of Nature ("environment," if you prefer), like "Manifest Destiny." WT PS: I agree about the need for "strong support." However, so does the alternative, whatever that is. If I failed to adequately address Crants' points either here or in the response to Hedges, please let me know. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] humans in the definition of environment I agree with Jamie Hedges that the assertion that culture is a sociopathological phenomenon requires very strong support. "Sociopathological phenomenon" could also use a clear definition. I understand it to be any social phenomenon that is (overall) harmful to the society in which it occurs. ("Harmful to society," to me, means "harmful to those within the society who have little power." History and current events are loaded with cases where powerful elites equate themselves with society and thus rationalize any harm they do to the powerless in pursuit of their own interests.) A Google search shows that people apply the term to crime, corruption, drug addiction, and fundamentalism. I can clearly see how our society would be better off without crime, corruption, and drug addiction, and, my religious and political views being what they are, I think we'd benefit if fundamentalism disappeared, too. But culture? Even Western culture? I think labeling all of Western culture a "sociopathological phenomenon" is advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are aspects of our culture that are causing more harm than good, obviously, but there are other aspects that serve people of little power quite well, including aspects that prevent or repair damage to the natural environment. The local foods movement, the Clean Air Act, classical music, science, and the First Amendment are all products of Western culture that I just can't see as pathological (overall). Beyond such specifics, though, society without culture is beyond my imagination. What would that even mean? I think of a society as a group of interacting people, and I don't see how a group of people can interact with each other without transmitting ideas and forming group values, thus creating culture. If I'm right that you can't have society without culture, it makes no sense to call culture "sociopathological." For that matter, I don't think you could have multiple humans in close proximity without having human interaction, leading inevitably to the formation of culture. Are humans sociopathological? Jim Crants On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jamie Lewis Hedges <hedge...@yahoo.com>wrote: I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the en Dear Wayne, I recognize that your's is an admirable concern for the environment and about the implications that human behavior has for it. The question of humans in the definition of environment--whether academic or general--is a crucial one, and cannot be resolved by any one person, field, and definitely not by so over-generalized an assertion. To characterize culture as a "sociopathological phenomenon" is concerning. Without discerning between those cultural behaviors that are beneficial and those that are detrimental to our environment, this statement remains unscientific and non sequitur. Culture? Which one? All of them? And what do you mean "we"? Certainly not Anthropologists, Sociologists, Geographers, etc. And your statement has in no way been the conclusion of the broader community of Ecologists. I find your idea repeated elsewhere, such as in your response to Gunderson and Folke's 2009 article "“Lumpy Information” in the journal Ecology and Society. There you write, "it may be useful, even critical to our depth of understanding, to recognize that culture itself is demonstrably a societal pathology." Again, unless corrected, this mistake makes the whole discussion fundamentally unscientific. Examples to the contrary include the classic Roy A. Rappaport's 1971 "The flow of energy in an agricultural society" [Scientific American 224(3):116-32] as well as Paul Robbins work on human-environment dynamics involving the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, India [Robbins, Chhangani, Rice, Trigosa, & Mohnot. Enforcement Authority and Vegetation Change at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management (2007) 40:365–378 as well as Chhangani, A. K., Robbins, P. and Mohnot, S. M. (2008) 'Crop Raiding and Livestock Predation at Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan India', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13:5,305—316]. By your statements and from the larger context of the Ecolog thread, I remain sure that by "culture" you mean "Western culture" and its demonstrable trend toward overconsumption and inefficient consumption of natural resources. Or perhaps by "culture" you mean "pop culture" and its role as raison d'être for Western culture's overconsumption of natural resources. While some, perhaps even I, who would argue the specifics of these, they would not be as concerning as your statements currently stand. Whether this is true or not, whether you agree or not, perhaps you and others would be interested in reading and perhaps responding to my discrete consideration of my response for a more general audience at http://jamielewishedges.info/2010/07/13/changing-culture/. With respectful concern, Jamie Lewis hedgeshedge...@yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3002 - Release Date: 07/13/10 06:36:00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3002 - Release Date: 07/13/10 06:36:00
