Well, truly sorry for your back, Wayne, but thank you for the discussion. I
also
thank Jim Crant for joining the discussion as well as Matt Chew for his
contributions, notably a subtitle - "misanthropy, etymology and environment."
Their appearance is welcome, especially since the author of the original post
has become notably absent. I'm frankly surprised that someone hasn't asked us
to
cut this short. For everyone's sake, I will. In order to respond to Wayne's
questions, I'll attempt to have the last word, but regardless, no further
response will be mine.
Wayne, your overall sketch seems similar to that of Richard Manning in his book
AGAINST THE GRAIN. He and others, like Daniel Quinn in the fiction ISHMAEL,
have
made the case that with domestication, agriculture, and Western Civilization as
we know it, Homo sapiens abandoned their 'natural' place in the environment to
their detriment.
You may certainly go through the etymology of a term for a definition but in
doing so you run risk of alienating your definition from the usage of a broader
audience. There have been at least 2 different denotations of the word since
its
etymological underpinnings. Like any other language, English is fraught with
words that mean something very different today than they did at their
historical
roots. So, as you say, "the root of any intellectual discipline is consistency
in definition and usage". We must then defer to that discipline whose field of
inquiry requires such consistency. I cannot imagine a top anthropologist who
couldn't adequately address the question of definition.
Ignoring your aversion to authorities, I will again refer you and others to the
text CULTURE, THE ANTHROPOLOGISTS' ACCOUNT by Adam Kuper. This contains a
thorough etymology of the term 'culture' including the academic politics that
separated its usage from 'society' and designated it as a field of study for
Anthropology in reference to Sociology. Though a right of passage among
Anthropologists is personalizing the definition...
the most definitive and, in juxtaposition to society, clarifying definition of
culture is that of Talcott Parsons -
"to define the concept culture... transmitted and created content and patterns
of values, ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful systems as factors in the
shaping of human behavior and the artifacts produced through behavior. On the
other hand, we suggest that the term society... be used to designate the
specifically relational system of interaction among individuals and
collectivies" (69).
In my courses, I explain the distinction between 'culture' and 'society' with a
gamut of the anthropogenic coercions on human behavior. Society includes those
more tangible/explainable while culture those that are more
intangible/unexplainable. A good example is a foreign exchange student with you
who starts to do something that you quickly stop them from doing. They ask why.
"It's the law," is the clearest expression of society. "We just don't do that
here," is the clearest expression of culture. But the two demonstrably overlap
and certainly make clear distinction problematic. Nevertheless, both terms
refer
to a broad diversity of human behaviors, culture itself including a diverse
array of created and transmitted values, ideas, and symbols. Furthermore, Jim
rightly states that culture has the characteristic of existing on multiple
contextual levels from "human culture," if there is such a thing, at the most
grand to "communities" that exhibit cultural forms and dynamics on the most
basic level.
This is what makes your assertion that 'culture is pathological' so perverse.
It
suggests that whatever the diversity of values, ideas, and symbols, all are
inferior and destructive to individual and collective interaction. We have
already fairly discredited your assertion on numerous counts that I will
revisit
using these established definitions. Then I will disprove the assertion wrong
on
another.
First, the statement is logically an over-generalization, ignores evidence to
the contrary, and persists with additional logical fallacies.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything Jim stated in his first response to this
thread. Wayne, Jim well restates my own assertion that your statement is
fallacious because "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)." Exactly what
I've told you. While you may argue that Western Culture hasn't or that Western
Culture specifically is incapable, you cannot scientifically prove that all
culture is incapable or that all culture hasn't.
The 'test' that you set is that culture is pathological when it "undermine[s]
the welfare of the species more than... ensures it." By what measure? You also
set this measure already. "I try to look at the question of 'humans in the
definition of environment' in biological/ecological/evolutionary terms rather
than cultural terms."
EVIDENCE: I don't know if you've noticed, but we Homo sapiens are 6.8 billion
in
attendance."If a behavior contributes to the long-term survival of the species,
I consider it 'healthy' for that species rather than pathological," you say.
EVIDENCE: You mention the tool in connection with culture, which is
appropriate,
as within the larger definition of Parsons, Archaeologists must focus on
culture
as created and transmitted patterns of artifacts. As well, the tool, I'll
agree,
is arguably an expression of separation from 'nature'. Throughout the history
of
Homo sapiens the tool has enabled us to survive and biologically succeed
throughout the globe in more ecological contexts than any other species but
microbial species. This meets your test. Culture as the tool has helped the
welfare of our species.
Additionally, Jim is right that your statement then assumes the human species
to
be pathological. You state, "As culture 'advanced,' humans increasingly were
outside of Nature... hence, culture is, by definition, pathological." Then
humans are pathological since tools, and tools extend well into our pre-Homo
sapiens ancestrage even to uses by other animals like chimpanzees, ravens, and
ants. So by your test, and using tools as a signature of culture, not only are
humans pathological but also a whole breadth of animals. I hazard that you will
find no general acceptance of this theory in the scientific community.
If the statement wasn't problematic enough, you even elevate hunting and
gathering as more valuable than agriculture, but hunting and gathering groups
are in themselves culture.
EVIDENCE: Your over-generalization fails with evidence. Which I've offered
twice. Conveniently, you say you "do not automatically consider authorities as
conclusive. However, if you have a point...." My point is that the evidence of
traditional pre-historical Amazonian and New Guinean agriculture as well as of
historical Indian grazing disproves your theory. So would even more recent
developments such as perma-culture. Not to mention that the evolution of
societies and cultures are not linear and most have exhibited entire reversals:
settlements in the Levant, for instance, and the Hohokam who both moved back
and
forth between agriculture and hunting-gathering practices whenever the climate
shifted.
EVIDENCE: You can and have implied that we don't know what may yet happen in
the
grander historical context, meaning we won't ultimate know if 'human culture'
is
. Afterall, 200,000 years is nothing compared to the longevity of dinosaurs,
right. But scientifically we cannot extrapolate into the unobserveable. In this
case we've entered into the realm of God. Not, mind you, in a religious sense
but in a logical one. Namely, the logic fallacy that is impossible to prove or
disprove.
Finally, while I have implicitly agreed that you may find cultural behaviors
some that are arguably pathological, I assert in final rebuttal that society
has
it's own cross to bear. Society also "undermine[s] the welfare of the species
more than... ensures it" and is therefore, by your test "pathological." Culture
being the transmission of values and ideas trends toward heterogeneity and
difference. Society being those things that interelate people and through which
people interact trends toward homogeneity and sameness. What in Ecology causes
systemic failure. Prove me wrong.
As I've said elsewhere, those who have opposed culture as pathological have
lent
themselves to control and humanitarian crisis. Let me be clear in restating
that
I do not believe this is Wayne's intent. I simply think your statement, though
dangerous, is unscientific and absurd. And I've now exhaustively explained why.
Again, it is much more defensible and productive an assertion to state that
with
some human behaviors, some cultural patterns, even some social patterns are by
your test and definition pathological.
In the most recent post you write as follows:
"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."
This is exactly what I came to in my blog post. The difference is that by
insisting on a statement that culture in toto is pathological, you have
presumed
to disqualify all of those many and diverse values and ideas that would
contribute to such reconciliation.
Jamie Lewis Hedges
hedge...@yahoo.com
NOTICE:This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C._ 2510-2521, is confidential and may be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please be aware that any
retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in
error, then delete it. Thank you for helping maintain privacy.
