Cultural Theory Concept - Assignment Example

Running Head: Culture Theory Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: University: Date the Assignment is due: Culture Theory Culture is the cumulative deposit of experience, beliefs, knowledge, values, attitudes, hierarchies, religion, meanings, and notions of time, spatial relations, and roles, concepts of the universe and material objects. it also comprises of possessions acquired by a particular group of people in the process of developing generations through group striving (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). Culture theory is an anthropological concept explaining the diverse dimensions of cultures, definitions, cultural elements and any other component related to culture. The idea is to define all available heuristic cultural concepts. The major concentration of the discipline is on particular phenomenon relating to ideological, national, ethnical, social class, as well as gender matters. There is therefore, a considerable coloration between culture and the society because the society is a composition of humans who develop the same culture. Culture in absolute terms influences society and the opposite happens. Arnold (2005) argues the same way as Raymond (2000) argument that cultural theory is generally universal. The argument behind the concept is that distinctive beliefs, values, and habits (in neighborhoods, tribes, nations, and races) reduce to only several cultural biases including preferences. Cultural theory is particularly one of many approaches, which have been used in coping with the subjectivity inherent to analyze long-term change globally in the society. There is always a controversy in trying to explain universality among people of different cultures emanating from differences in societies. Ward (1994) explains a cultural theory with an allegation of providing universal basis for its operation taxonomy. White (1999) stood on the ground that culture does exist actually in all human interactions. He continued the argument that neither culture nor any form of human interactions can take precision over the other. Accordingly, human interaction happens through the particular cultural signs shared by a society (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). This is subject of influence to specific humans, who belong to particular cultural groups. Therefore, there is ensued communication that persists within particular cultures, and varying existence of culture models of communication within the society. Conversely, phenomena interpretation happens based on people’s cultures and this influence every society globally. From the previous discussion, Arnold (2005) applies the same concept in explaining the concept of cultural theory within societies. His argument emphasize that specific values within particular cultures are particularly elements, which are weighty and used to determine the varying societal features, as well as determined by several other factors. These values were subject of discussion in Karakowsky (2001) argument. In a study defining British society’s culture and portraying it as consisting of social structure, religion, language, education, political philosophy and economic philosophy, his argument shapes on the ground that culture affects humans in varying ways. Additionally, the norms of cultures within a society are the prime determinant of the behavior of people also, verifies the environment around them. Moreover, Lawrence (2001) makes emphasis of relevance to investigate British society including its characteristics to build a better understanding of its distinctive culture (Philip, 2001; Michael, 1999; Lenski, 1974). According to a study by Lawrence (2001), the values of culture within a society are stable on temporarily over a period, and they generally exhibit signs of regular change in simply a slow but gradual process. Likewise, the study by Raymond (2000) indicates that the human culture, as quit a dynamic entity, has the capability of modifying itself and changing to develop other characteristics. Moreover, culture can reshape drastically by making changes on the existing circumstances as well as the immediate environments that surround societies Lawrence (2001). Such views are in further support of Arnold (2005) whose argument maintained that people travel or migrate to other countries experiencing strong effects from other cultures, which they interact with in the process of their travel. Always an effect on the hosting cultures from other foreign cultures happens and features in behavior, language, political and commercial fields where the exchange happens. In addition to this argument, Karakowsky (2001) develops a confirmation that a particular society inherits its outstanding cultural values, for instance equity, care, legal and political structures, as well as responsibility. Therefore, with the inheritance of such cultural values, the society experiences an effect from the same playing vital roles despite the changes caused by the globalization, global market policies and by the remarkable development within the communication technology docket (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). There are varying schools of culture that explain cultures in particular dimensions. The theory of culture determinism as espoused by various scholars stands its ground in explaining varying developments of culture. It takes the position that the meanings, beliefs, ideas and values are inscribed in people through learning as members of a particular society (Brown, 1995). The argument behind this school of thought is that society determines the existence of human nature. It espouses that people are shaped by what they learn from the society (Philip, 2001; Michael, 1999; Lenski, 1974). Optimistic cultural determinism version places no limits on the human abilities to do or to change and be whatever they would wish to be in their living within a particular society. Some anthropologists suggest that there is nothing like universal cultures meaning that there is no what other sociologist’s term as "the right way" of humans because to them, everything shapes per the surrounding environment. "Right way" is similar to "our way" of which the later does not correspond to what the individuals perceive as from the society (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). There are also other optimistic versions of the determinism theory postulating that human nature is particularly malleable, which also argues that human being have a chance of making chooses and referring to their own ways of life that is comfortable to them. The pessimistic version of this theory maintains the argument that people in a society are what the society conditions to be. In other words, it explains that they certainly do not have any control over this particular situation. It also adds that human beings tend to be passive creatures and they literally do whatever their culture instructs without any compromise of negotiation (Raymond, 2000). Arnold (2005) argues that cultural relativism is another school of thought explaining culture development and its effect to a particular society. Its argument majors on the explanation that different cultural groups feel, think, and act differently. Additionally, there are no specific scientific standards considering a scrupulous group as fundamentally superior or inferior to the other. Studying the different cultures among societies and groups presupposes an exact position of cultural relativism. It certainly does not entail normalcy for oneself, or involve one's society. It, however, requires judgment when one deals with particular societies that highlight differences from one's own. Information regarding the nature of cultural differences between groups or societies their roots, as well as their consequences must precede action and judgment (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). Cultural ethnocentrism is also a part of the schools of thought that explain the cultural specific concepts and how individuals explain culture. Ethnocentrism generally a belief that one's own culture is undeniably superior to that of any other version of cultures. It is a form of developed reductionism reducing the "other way" of life distorting the new version and making preferences to one's own (Brown, 1995). This is particularly relevant in case of global dealings especially where individuals or groups travel to other extreme ends and meet particular cultures. In reality, human beings have an ethnocentric feature when interacting with other societies because theirs has already shaped their own as the right culture. The result is always despising other cultures featuring in their way and eliminating any concept of culture from outside. The society therefore, plays a substantial role in shaping one’s culture and instilling values and attributes in an individual with a strong affection of the same (White, 1999). Cultural elements also take the form of manifestations of culture. It is the way cultures highlights it and thrives within individuals. This is what leads to an espoused cultural difference because particular societies have varying elements of their own. The differences manifest themselves in the elements using different ways as well as differing depth levels. Within cultures, symbols are the main representation of the superficial values (Brown, 1995; Ziauddin, 2004; Thompson et al, 1990, 1999; Voegelin, 2000; Peter, 2002). They are the most prominent manifestations of particular cultures, with rituals and heroes in between. Symbols of a society are particular pictures, words, gestures, or specific members of that society only recognize objects carrying particular and distinct meaning that (Ward, 1994). This is because the society members are the only ones who share these particular elements of culture. This means that the elements are specific to societies meaning that the society manifests and overrides over the others through the elements. It is what separates one societal culture from the other. Culture grows and this is indisputable. Therefore, there is always a development of new symbols easily developing within the society and with the old ones disappearing (Brown, 1995). Symbols from a specific societal group are regularly copied and feature in other society through the process of interaction. This is why perceived symbols of a society represent the outermost layer in any given culture. Among other elements of culture, include heroes. These are persons, who in the past or present, fictitious or real possess particular characteristics, which are highly prized within a given culture. Any society has these kinds of people who are of value in maintaining the reputation of the given society (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). These are keen elements because they represent and shape a particular culture. They also are models for behavior within that given culture. Therefore, the particular society depends on these influential people in shaping particular values and behaviors in that society. Other crucial elements include rituals within the society. These also common features influence the shaping of the societal culture. Rituals are collective activities, at times superfluous in reaching the societal desired objectives. They are however, considered as equally essential in social terms (White, 1999). They are practiced therefore, most of the times within individuals who interact most in that particular society. Some of these rituals include greetings, paying respect, and religious as well as other social ceremonies. In reality, these features of rituals are an effect on what goes around within societal institutions of cultures. The core of a particular culture happens through values (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). There is always a broad tendency of making preferences in particular individuals of certain affairs considered to others. Some of the states of affairs that the rituals influence in decision-making include right or wrong, righteous or evil, and natural or unnatural. In summary, heroes, symbols, and rituals are the visual or tangible aspects of the cultural practices. They influence the shaping and identity of societies a fantastic deal giving meaning to the way of life that the particular society goes through as different from the others (Brown, 1995). Arnold (2005) expounded on cultural elements by incorporating Attitudes. These are generally the external displays of underpinning beliefs, which people use to mutually signal other people of the same societal culture and hold similar membership. The attitudes are elements that the members use in giving perceptions, for instance how a particular member of a society holds others without and outside the particular society (Ward, 1994). The society effect is felt among individuals through Learned Transmission in culture. Culture traits as well as other broader cultural patterns among them institutions, beliefs, language, technology, and values develop transmissions across successive generations and they particularly maintain continuity through the process of learning termed enculturation (Philip, 2001; Michael, 1999; Lenski, 1974). Accordingly, learning intelligence and abilities are essential assets in any given society and for all human groups. The concept of learning replaces the biologically based genetic transmission role of instincts dominant even in human beings. However, a crucial relation between culture and biology must first be fully acknowledged (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). Human biology affects cultural development, since learning and symbolic abilities depend upon the brain composition physical and other adaptations anatomically, for instance vocal structures producing speech or other manual abilities that can equally manufacture tools. This biological substratum is always in support of a generalized capacity for varying cultures among all society individuals and explains varying universal features, for instance language learning abilities (Douglas, 1982; Efland, 1998; Hall, 1976; Francis, 2009). Nevertheless, biological factors are not great and relevant determinants of specific cultural traits within societies, for instance, they do not dictate language in the sense of speaking English, French, or any other language. There is always an argument that children have preprogrammed elements by genetics that help in learning languages via fixed stages. Therefore, biology is also a determinant of particular elements of a particular culture (Brown, 1995). It is apparent that cultural variations among societal individuals have an attribution in learned traditions and not what many theorists argue as innate or genetic propensities (Douglas, 1992). The replacement of learning in explaining the concepts of genetic transmission gives a proper picture of human evolution within cultural development. Humans within a given society have to adapt to the immediate environment through varying cultural strategies rather than the argued genetic predispositions (Ward, 1994). Accordingly, groups spread drastically to every part of the globe and equally survive drastic differences in cultures and practices but they do not experience anatomical changes. Societal Grounding also explains Culture as only observable in the personal behavior form but abstractions are possible from individuals' actions and attributions collocated with the social groups to which they particularly belong. Accordingly, many anthropologists underemphasize the relevance of individual responsibility as well as creativity and they tend to focus on the collective identity including symbols as the common denominator (White, 1999). This position helps counter some modern understandings of the relevance of individual actions within a particular society. Douglas (1992) describes culture sharing as happening in all societies through which people interact with others in the same or different society. Depending on what region a particular society lives in, including the climatic conditions, historical heritage, and other attributes, societies form sets of beliefs and values that they share and value them (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). The respective set of principles of life is what shapes the societal culture. Karakowsky (2001) says there is no any particular culture that can belong, to a specific individual alone, at least there has to be an element of sharing. In general, he makes assumptions that particular cultures belong to particular societies, and they shape their identity. The members of that given society have to be sharing certain ideals for the culture to continue thriving among them the sharing leads to the shaping of their lives. Generations in particular societies learn to follow the same-shared principles and ideals (Kim, 2001). Conversely, culture generally propagates through successive generations that adopt their old customs as well as traditions as a part of the main elements of culture. The society therefore, develops with some set values (Brown, 1995; Ziauddin, 2004; Thompson et al, 1990, 1999; Voegelin, 2000; Peter, 2002). The imparting of cultural values happens within individuals of the society through the element of sharing from a generation to another. Therefore, the sharing is crucial in any given society since it results in a continual of traditions generally a part of the broad culture. The language, the art forms and the literature of any given culture pass across generations. Douglas (1992) argues that no individual is born without an element of sharing in that he or she has to develop as sense of culture including learning it. Kim (2001) adds that for an effective transfer of the respective cultural values and norms in a given society and to successive generations, there has to be a translation in terms of particular symbols that represent the cultural values of that particular society (Brown, 1995). Language, religion and art form the bigger system of symbols that render strong and crucial meanings of a particular culture. Despite the older generations’ efforts of transferring their respective cultural values, there is always a hitch in the forthcoming generations tending to remain unaware of the particular elements of culture unless through continued learning. Hyatt (1989) argues that within a society, people have incomplete knowledge of their respective cultures because of the drastic changes that happen regularly. People seldom are aware of their culture in a complete manner. A gradual change is commonly the idiosyncratic to every culture within varying societies. Cultures on the other hand, have to develop and initiate the respective changes. Karakowsky (2001) adds that societal cultures lose some of its traits while gaining new ones from other societies. The aspects of change in cultures according to Douglas (1992) are varying across societies. With the time passing by, new technologies are continuing to emerge, introducing new modes of working and social thinking undergoing transitions; therefore, there is an element of change in respective societies forced by external forces and factors. Culture has a substantial impact on individuals of a particular society. In explaining the cultural impact, Kim (2001) argues that culture has various aspects that within them, they tend to influence either negative or positive attributes in the society. Culture is learned, which is why individuals of a particular society tend to take time before they adjust to a new culture (Douglas, 1992). The learning process is termed as enculturation. This gives the individuals a way forward into carrying out some of the practices within a given culture. The learning process however, varies from individual to the other within that given society (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). Another enormous cultural impact incorporates the facade of cultural patterning. People in a given society, think and live in ways forming definite patterns. In this case, they have to develop particular living ways in which they follow (Douglas, 1982; Efland, 1998; Hall, 1976; Francis, 2009). This affects individuals of a particular society in every feature of their lives. In reality, the individuals have to conform to what they feature as right from the society. Even when interacting with other societies, these individuals have to develop some form of identity with the immediate society. Hyatt (1989) identifies that the particular societal features have to be through a particular formation. He insists there is a mutual construction of the respective elements through a constant process that involves social interaction. This way, individuals in a particular society undergo social impact because the society dictates their way of life connoting every single attribute and activity they engage in from time to time (Karakowsky, 2001). Hofstede (1997) devised a working composite-measure technique measuring cultural differences and explaining what happens within societies including the varying elements and values among them. He came up with a five-detailed differentiation that clearly marks the different aspects of culture and explains society’s ways of living (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). Power distance as a concept developed by Hofstede explains the varying degree of inequality in societies. It explains appropriately, why particular cultures are in view as meaning that is more superior, that there are certain cultural concepts termed as noteworthy that others. The other weighty disparity explains lies in uncertainty avoidance index. Hofstede explains this concept as the way society’s measure the level to which it feels threatened by ambiguous or uncertain situations. This is particularly noteworthy in any given society because it analysis its existence and the power it holds in existence of among many others (Andrew, 2007; Clifford, 1993; Deborah, 2002; Haynes, 1999; Jenkins, 2002). The concept behind this is when societies have to build strong bonds to prevent ant outside influences that crumble the existing bonds between the established individuals. Individualism index also applies appropriately in the cultural concept explaining the varying degrees of societies. The index is a measure of the extent to which a society happens to be individualistic. In this realm, it portrays how societies behave in the presence of others. It explains the impact a culture has on others showing how they can influence members of another group outside the particular culture (Douglas, 1992). Individualism refers generally to the loosely knit forms of social framework in a particular society where people are supposed to care for themselves including their immediate families and not minding the others within the same society (Brown, 1995; Ziauddin, 2004; Thompson et al, 1990, 1999; Voegelin, 2000; Peter, 2002). The concept is resplendent in differentiating varying cultures and their existence among many other societies. Hofstede also generalizes on the concept of masculinity index in which it is a cultural aspect explaining Achievement vs. Relationship in a given society (Brown, 1995). The issue in this in measuring the extent that the dominant values of a particular culture are assertiveness and the impact they have on others as well as they have on individuals within the same culture. References Andrew, E. (2007). Cultural theory: the key concepts. London: Rout ledge. Arnold, M. (2005). Culture and Anarchy. New York: Macmillan. Brown, A. (1995) Organizational Culture. London: Pitman Publishers. Clifford, G. (1993). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: New York University Publishers. Deborah, E. (2002). Development and culture: Selected Essays from Development in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douglas, M. (1992). Essays in Cultural Theory. London: New York: Rout ledge. Douglas, M. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Efland, R. (1998). The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. London: Rout ledge. Francis, M. (2009). Culture and Society, Then and Now, New Left Review 2(33) 176-198. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Haynes, D. (1999). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row, 36-40. Hyatt, S. (1989). Community and culture: The James Bay Cree in Canada. Habitat international, 13(2), 33-40. Jenkins, R. (2002). Foundations of Sociology. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Karakowsky, L. (2001). Do We See Eye-to-Eye? Implications of Cultural Differences for Cross-Cultural Management Research and Practice. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 501-517. Kim, U. (2001). Culture, science and indigenous psychologies: An integrated analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawrence, H. et al (2001). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books Lenski, G. (1974). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macro sociology. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc. Michael, T. (1999). The Human Adaptation for Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 28: 511. Peter, E. (2002). Comparing Cultures. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5(3) 234-256. Philip, S. (2001). Cultural Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell press. Raymond, W. (2000). Culture and Society. London, UK: The Hogarth Press Ltd, p.363. Thompson, M. et al. (1990). Cultural Theory. Westport: West view Press. Thompson, M. (1998). Cultural Theory as political science. New York: Rout ledge. Voegelin, G. (2000). Culture, Language and the Human Organism. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7: 370. Ward, G. (1994). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2 (4) 126-145. White, L. (1999). The Science of Culture: A study of man and civilization. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Ziauddin, S. (2004). Introducing Cultural Studies. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd. Read More