|
'''Kenilworth''' is a village located in [[Cook County, Illinois]], approximately 17 miles north of downtown [[Chicago]]. It is the newest of the eight suburban "[[North Shore]]" communities bordering [[Lake Michigan]], and is the only one developed as a planned community. Department store mogul Joseph [[Sears]] purchased 223.6 acres in one of the last undeveloped areas near Chicago's lakeshore for $150,300 in [[1889]]. Seven years later the population had reached 300 residents, fulfilling the legal requirement for incorporation. As of the [[2000]] census, the village had a total population of 2,494.
{{AIDnom}}
Kenilworth has a reputation as the wealthiest and most exclusive community in [[Chicagoland]]. In April of 2005, American Demographics magazine named Kenilworth's [[zip code]] (60043) the 11th most affluent in the U.S.
==Before 2003?==
== Geography ==
Be gentle. This is only a stub! (*puts on [[:asbesthos|asbesthos]] suit*) --Anders Törlind
Kenilworth is located at 42°5'17" North, 87°42'57" West (42.088128, -87.716009){{GR|1}}.
----
''Culture,'' as a supercategory distinguished from the sciences (pure and applied) and foundational disciplines, is extremely difficult to characterize in such a way that includes all the categories that are often placed under this heading. What, for example, do the visual arts, religion, and recreation have to do with each other?
----
According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the village has a total area of 1.6 [[square kilometer|km²]] (0.6 [[square mile|mi²]]). 1.6 km² (0.6 mi²) of it is land and none of it is covered by water.
We separate ''Culture'' from Sciences? I consider Science to
be a part of the Culture.
== Demographics ==
----
As of the [[census]]{{GR|2}} of [[2000]], there are 2,494 people, 792 households, and 697 families residing in the village. The [[population density]] is 1,604.9/km² (4,190.8/mi²). There are 815 housing units at an average density of 524.5/km² (1,369.5/mi²). The racial makeup of the village is 97.27% [[White (U.S. Census)|White]], 0.16% [[African American (U.S. Census)|African American]], 0.04% [[Native American (U.S. Census)|Native American]], 2.25% [[Asian (U.S. Census)|Asian]], 0.00% [[Pacific Islander (U.S. Census)|Pacific Islander]], 0.00% from [[Race (U.S. Census)|other races]], and 0.28% from two or more races. 1.36% of the population are [[Hispanic (U.S. Census)|Hispanic]] or [[Latino (U.S. Census)|Latino]] of any race.
We could say culture refers to those things that exist in some form in every society, but which differ in particular expression from society to society. - TimShell
----
I would go off sounding like a dictionary to say: 'the pattern of knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends, in part, on the capacity to learn that enables members to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations' or 'the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize a group' or 'to grow in a prepared medium.' (That last one being both off-topic and an interesting restatement of the first.) --PhillipHankins
----
Should this article become a disambiguation page with links to [[Culture (biology)]], [[Culture (anthropology)]], [[Culture (arts and letters)]], and possibly [[Culture (fashion)]]?--[[user:netesq|NetEsq]]
There are 792 households out of which 49.9% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 81.7% are [[Marriage|married couples]] living together, 5.6% have a female householder with no husband present, and 11.9% are non-families. 10.2% of all households are made up of individuals and 6.4% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 3.15 and the average family size is 3.39.
:I basically agree with you, although "culture(anthropology) would be too narrow; although the article emphasizes anthropology, it is discussing a concept used by sociologists, critical theorists, and others and in its current structure can accommodate development by people from other disciplines. Maybe culture (concept in social theory)? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
In the village the population is spread out with 34.8% under the age of 18, 4.0% from 18 to 24, 19.7% from 25 to 44, 29.7% from 45 to 64, and 11.8% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 40 years. For every 100 females there are 90.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 87.3 males.
:: ''As an anthropologist by training, I must admit that I am highly biased on this issue. IMHO, culture qua science and social theory is a term of art that is properly the province of anthropology, a term of art which has been borrowed by various other related disciplines. I think most sociologists and critical theorists would agree, but I will let them speak for themselves.
The median income for a household in the village is excess of $200,000, as is the median income for a family. Males have a median income of over $100,000 versus $69,375 for females. The per capita income for the village is $100,718. 1.1% of the population and none of the families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, none are under the age of 18 and 1.7% are 65 or older.
::In any event, I think we are in agreement on the need for a disambiguation page for culture with a link to [[Culture (biology)]]. What about [[Culture (arts and letters)]] and [[Culture (fashion)]]? Can we agree that these connotations of culture are sufficiently distinct from culture qua science and social theory to warrant separate articles?--[[user:netesq|NetEsq]]''
== External links ==
----
{{Mapit-US-cityscale|42.088128|-87.716009}}
I removed the following section. I do ''not'' mean to delete it, but I do think it needs a lot of work before it is reincoprorated into the article. I suggest we work on it here, and then figure out where to put it in the article. I have some more specific comments afterwards.
[[Category:Cook County, Illinois]]
[Content moved to [[Culture theory]].]
[[Category:Villages in Illinois]]
Let me state at the outset that I agree with virtually everything here. My problem is not that I think it is wrong, but that it is ill-suited for an encyclopedia article. That is, although personally I agree with almost if not all of it, I understand that this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal. I think this is a view that emerged especially among anthropologists in the mid twentieth century. Many people, including anthropologists, in the 19th century used the word culture very differently. Many anthropologists by the late 20th century began moving away from this understanding of culture (there are extensive debates in anthropology journals over whether this understanding of culture has any meaning at all). Finally, many non-anthropologists use the term culture in rather different ways. YET, the above is written as if this is "the" meaning of culture. In short, it is written in an ''argumentative'', rather than ''expository'' tone. This is conveyed in part through such rhetorical devises as "we have seen" and "let us look" and "it must be realized" -- devices that are usually used to lead people through an argument or convince them -- or to assert a certain authority. Frankly, I think such rhetorical devices are inappropriate to this project.
I think much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular view of culture, and in that highly condensed and historicized form it can be reinserted. Otherwise, it misrepresented the history of the term, and neglects current scholarly debate.
Also, on a side note, to whomever wrote this: please review Wikipedia formatting guidelines so that when you do contribute to articles you do not screw up the format (I am sure the previous screw-up was entirely unintended, I have done similar things myself) [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
==2003==
Once again, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 02:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)~
------------
I was reading an news article the other day that said chimps could be said to have culture -- across Africa, different groups exhibit different behaviours in both feeding habits, grooming and courtship. Some of these (like using tools) gradually spread. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 10:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) (not the one I read, but similar: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/370807.stm )
At http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/chimpculture030102.html there is a similar report but with regard to orangutans. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
PS: I just noticed the article URL - "chimpculture" in an article about orangs. Sigh. --- Tannin
----
By definition, culture (in the anthropological sense) is a human phenomenon, and the "definitions" of culture used in these news articles is a radical departure from any commonly accepted definition of culture that is used by anthropologists. Absent a peer-reviewed report in a serious scientific journal which harmonizes with these news reports, the news reports should be dismissed as scientifically inaccurate.-- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 13:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why. These reports quote primatologists, and show that the notion of "culture" applies to other species. As an encyclopedia it's our duty to report emerging theories. Don't be so humanocentric! -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 13:25 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
When there is evidence of religion among other primates, a primary component of all anthropological theories of culture, I think it would be worth noting. Until that time, it is scientifically inaccurate to state that any hominid, much less a primate, possesses culture.
Simply put, as an emerging scientific theory, these news reports are on the same par as news reports about creation science. No doubt we could find a whole bunch of credentialed scientists who would be willing to offer half-truths and misleading definitions to suit their own agendas in this regard as well.-- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 13:37 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
: No, they don't have religion. Which would suggest that they are SMARTER than we are. Do we have any anthropologists on board who can comment on this? -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]
I have a bachelor of arts in anthropology (cum laude) and I have taken graduate level courses in both primatology and cultural anthropology.
The issue is not one of intelligence; it is one of definition: Only hominids can possess culture, and only hominids which possess culture are considered human. As I said before, religion is a key component of any theory of culture which is commonly accepted among anthropologists. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 13:49 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
: That is a ciruclar definition -- you appear to be saying "culture is what humans have" and "humans are those that have culture". -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 13:54 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Be that as it may, that definition is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists: One must meet the biological criteria of being human (i.e, be a hominid) to possess culture. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 14:04 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
: Then the definition is badly-formed because it makes unnecessary presumptions -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 14:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
So say you, but it is consistent with any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists.
On this note, the statement that "only humans possess culture" is not "the" definition of culture; it is simply part of any definition of culture that is commonly accepted among anthropologists, one that disqualifies primates who do not meet the biological criteria of being human. Another component of such commonly accepted definitions that disqualifies chimpanzees and orangutans is the component of religion. Yet another component would be the use of symbolic language (emphasis on symbolic) to transmit culture, something for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 14:21 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
----
The trouble with anthropologists is that they think their own peculiar usage of any given term is ordained by God, and all other usages are debasements of His Holy Writ. (A good general purpose recipe, this one, by the way. Feel free to substitute whichever academic group ending in "oligist" is most convenient to your argument. Flavour with professional bigotry to taste.) My point, of course, is that there are many definitions of "culture", and although the term is, in broad, more central to anthropolgy than, for example, sociology, biology or history, it is commonly used in different senses in a host of fields. Differentiating between them sensibly, and yet producing a cohesive, readable article even so would tax Solomon's wisdom. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
Given the fact that there is so much disagreement about the proper use of the term culture, this article should become a disambiguation page. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 13:52 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
: Good idea. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]
----
Hello,
I wrote the big long thing. I realize now that it would be better titled "Cultural Behavior" and linked to fromt this page. Who's going to handle the disambiguation, then?
[[user:Theanthrope|Theanthrope]]
In reviewing the previous versions of this article, I think that [[user:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein's]] previous version provided a good overview of the generic concept of culture qua culture. As for the discussion provided by [[user:Theanthrope|Theanthrope]], this could be the substance of an article entitled [[Culture theory]], but it still suffers from the defects outlined, ''supra'', by Slrubenstein. To wit, "this represents a very particular view that is by no means universal." Moreover, "it is written in an ''argumentative'', rather than ''expository'' tone." Accordingly, "much of the above can be condensed into an explanation for why most anthropologists in the mid-20th century adopted a particular [theory] of culture." To this end, simply follow the link to [[Culture theory]]; then cut, paste, and edit the appropriate content. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 19:23 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I did a copy and paste to [[Culture theory]]; anyone else care to cut/edit? -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 19:29 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I cut a definition of "culture" from the first paragraph. The problem is, as the first paragraph points out, there are many different definitions of culture and no consensus; moreover, these definitions have changed over time. The definition I cut seems to fall somewhere between Tylor's 19th century definition and an ad hoc definition used in many anthropology textbooks. Personally, I do not think the article needs such a definition. But if others disagree, I don't object putting it back in the article -- but I would insist that it be presented as ''a'' definition of culture (not ''the'' definition) and also contextualized (i.e., put the definition not in the introduction but somewhere in the body, along with information about when this definition arose and who still uses it). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
==2004==
I do not fully understand this sentence:
:Archaeologists' attempts to understand the processes behind material culture have also influenced their understanding of what constitutes an [[archaeological culture]].
What confuses me is the pronoun "their." Is this sentence saying that archeologists try to understand things that influence how archeologists understand things? It seems circular. Are the material processes in question important because they inform our understanding of culture, or because there are material processes in the profession of archeology that have influenced how archeologists do their work? I hopy my confusion is clear! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:Yes I agree it does seem rather circular now I think about it. Sorry about that. I should have said that advances in archaeological knowledge and divergences in archaeological theory have led to differing views of what a culture is; from the culture history view, thence to the processualist, anthropological view and now to the post-processualists and their rejection of systemic thinking. As is often the case, I thought I was being elegant when in fact I was being quite the opposite. I will have another go. [[User:Adamsan|adamsan ]] 19:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC) *Edited in order to make sense [[User:Adamsan|adamsan ]] 19:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC) *
Well, I am relieved that my confusion had some real basis. The only thing I would add is, I think something similar happened for cultural anthropologists. If there is something peculiar to the process among archeologists, or its result, perhaps the passage could be a little more specific too, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:If it's the same for both then maybe something like:
::'''''Archaeologists and anthropologists''' understand "culture" to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. '''As the disciplines have grown, their understandings of what constitutes culture have changed.'''''
:That last sentence sounds pretty weak though. On reflection, I will revert and confine my planned disquisition on archaeologists and cultures to the aptly-named [[archaeological culture]] entry [[User:Adamsan|adamsan ]] 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Then please be sure to provide a link to this article! I hope you understand that i was not at all objecting to the content of your contribution, only suggesting that there may be a clearer way to present it. Perhaps another issue is that in the US archeologists are anthropologists (I was not intending to contrast archeology and anthropology but rather archeologists and cultural anthropologists; perhaps you could say "Anthropologists, including archeologists and ethnographers" or something like that. Any way, I don't mean to resist your basic point! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:: Don't worry, I'll shoehorn a link in there somewhere! I just need to collect my thoughts on archaeologists and cultures first as this discussion has set me thinking! [[User:Adamsan|adamsan ]] 22:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
==Spelling==
In case it's an issue for anyone, I standardized the spelling to American, only because that's how it begins -- with the word "color" in the first sentence. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 22:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I changed a couple of instances of "artefact" to "artifact". But if any of you prefers British spellings, that's OK with me. I only mention it because I know it's been contentious elsewhere. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Confusing sentence ==
Can anyone make sense of "Moreover, they assumed that such patterns had clear bounds (thus, some people confuse "culture" for the society that has a particular culture)." If you can, can you rewrite it so that I might understand it also? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe we should just delete it. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== General comment ==
This article starts out strong, but then walks off of a pier. The effort to get this up to a 1.0 standard is going to be arduous, because past the first half a dozen paragraphs or so, this is a long way from what it should be. I think we've made a lot of improvements to this in the last few days, but what it comes down to is someone really needs to research and write this article: it's not just a matter of cleaning up and validating references. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:29, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I thought maybe I was the only one who found it lacking. Maybe I can add material next weekend. As of now, it's just about how anthropologists look at culture. I figure maybe it should have info about cultural development and acculturation at least. I added some links to related articles that might help. Maybe I can do something more substantial next weekend. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]]
:: Go for it. But even as a discussion of the historic growth from an inchoate notion of culture to the rise of an anthropological and sociological notion, it is weak. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 08:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it walks off a pier (although the stuff on cultural studies is a little out of joint). But I admit it is a short article. The question is, what "should" it be? Jmabel thinks it is a long way from that -- but I am not sure what his vision is of what it should be. I think we mneed to be clear about this because some of the things it ''could'' be (e.g. cultural theory, issues in the study of culture, methods, descriptions of different cultures) might better belong on linked pages. Can we come to some agreement about what an article on "culture" must include, and the rationale? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:I'd welcome that. To be honest, I'm not too sure what the article should be. I would assume that someone with a solid background in cultural anthropology would have a lot more to add... and that isn't me. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I actually have a solid background in cultural anthropology -- although I would defer to others (I know that there are some Wikipedians who are graduate students in anthropology, for example). Culture is a pretty big topic and if I tried to put everything I knew into this, it would get way too long. Also, at some poine what I know merges with what I think and this would become a personal essay, which of course is verboten. Thus, I hesitate -- strongly -- to make these decisions/choices by myself. I apprciate your humility concerning the topic, but you were right to raise the concern so I am sure any other thoughts you have would be worthwhile. Or perhaps you can encourage others (Mable?) to make suggestions? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:Well as a newly-minted professor of anthropology I'd be willing to make some suggestions about the page, but I want to stress for the record that I care more for commitment and learning than I do fancy, authoritative titles :) It seems to me that the problem with this article is that it goes in circles over a relatively small number of issues. First: The idea of culture as 'civilization' or 'cultivation' -- a scale of less-or-more sophistication that spawns notions of 'high' vs 'low' art and 'civilized' Europeans vs. 'uncivilized' colonial subjects. Second: the idea of cultures as a set of distinct and incommensurable world views, associated with (often German) romantic reactions to the first view of culture. Third: the outgrowth of the second view, which is the modern (anthropological) culture concept of structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning. Fourth: culture as identity and the idea of distinct 'cultures', 'multiculturalism' and a politics of recognition. Fifth: What I would call the 'para-academic' discourse on memes etc. which is widespread in popular culture (and particularly that of wikipedians) but totally looked down upon by academics. So I don't have a strong vision to impose on the page, but perhaps we could pull out those themes as a way of at least solidifying it? Finally: culture is one of these words that everyone has a strong idea about what it means. So in the future some clash between what 'the experts think' and what the para-academic stuff says is very likely going to occur. So I hope we can all stay civil while stull making hard decisions that will improve the page for everyone [[User:Alex Golub|Rex]] 20:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You distinguish five layers. I think each layer is important and would object to any one being deleted. However, if you feel that each layer needs more historical context and development, or that some layers need more development than others, I have no objection at all. One thing the article does right now is it provides a basis for understanding why the word culture is often used in contradictory ways -- I think this is important. But I find your comments otherwisae constructive. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:You all know more about this than I do. Just my opinion, but right now the article seems too academic, like a textbook. Hope that doesn't offend the writer.
:In contrast to the study of culture, I think general readers would be interested in acculturation, cultural development, distinctions of cultures and subcultures, and contemporary issues such as cultural bias, cultural diversity and multicultralism. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 08:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::I agree completely that the article should contain all of those. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 19:12, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I certainly don't take offense, I think Maureen's characterization is right (thought I think academic style is a good way to write a stub and introduce a topic). I also like her list of topics to add to discussion. Frankly, I don't really have time to work on it now but perhaps others will. I certainly appreciate Maureen's suggestions for the direction for the article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
:Rock on. I'll see if I can't work on it in the next couple of days. [[User:Alex Golub|Rex]] 23:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Citation of Arnold in opening portion ==
What's with the citation "(Arnold, 1960: 6)." The only work by Arnold given in the references is (correctly) dated 1882. Also, to refer to Arnold as a "cultural theorist" identifies him incorrectly with Cultural Theory, a movement postdating him by a century. Also, given when he was writing, he was not so much reacting ''against'' the broader, contemporary view of culture as maintaining continuity with the notion of his own time. And, now that I look, the quotation is part of the same one I used, appropriately contextualized, in the next section. In the same paragraph, I'm not sure who "The Leavis's" means, presumable F.R. Leavis and someone else. Can we just delete that paragraph? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm going to take the liberty of doing so, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, revert me. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 23:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC) Looks like [[User:Slrubenstein]] beat me to it! -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 23:37, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said so but it seemed like such an obviousa thing to do, your argument was very reasonable, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
==Unclear sentences==
Two sentences confuse me.
*"This led to the modern cultural and social anthropology's concept of culture as defined by structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional sets of meaning and instantiated in cultural artifacts."
I'm not sure what it is that is "instantiated in cultural artifacts." And maybe there is a clearer way to express "instantiated."
*"With this more flexible model of culture, allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as, at least potentially multicultural, both in terms of different historically national or tribal cultures co-existing (with various possible degrees of blending) within a society and with the concept of subcultures."
This sentence seems to be missing punctuation or words (in this section: "allowing for cultural borrowings and cultural appropriation has arisen a view of complex human societies as").
Also, would it be correct to break the sentence in two, as in: "… at least potentially multicultural. This is both in terms …" [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:I too found these sentences difficult to follow. I have thus rewritten this section. I ask Maurreen to go over what I did and see if it is clearer -- and perhaps make more editorial changes to make it clearer/a better read. But I ask Rex to go over it too to make sure I did not delete important content or misrepresent what he was trying to explain. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
::It's much more clear now, thank you. I hope to go over it a little more tonight.
::And you guys are doing a good job fleshing this article out. I think it's become much more informative. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 16:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Revert==
Why were my edits reverted? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 05:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:well, they are polemical. The article already makes clear that humans evolved with culture. If you think that this should be more clearly stated -- I certainly have no objection to the Geertz quote -- why don't you insert the positive (meaning, non-argumentative) point in the beginning in context where it belongs? As to your polemical point -- in general, I think it is unencyclopedic to refer to "some people" (although I know who you mean). Couldn't you just mention Rousseau and a few more recent examples? Even so, I would object to putting mention of them in the article. It is an article on culture and I don't see any need to mention critics of culture, especially when they are mentioned only to knock down (a straw man argument). If you are especially interested in those people who romanticise a "pre-cultural" humanity, why don't you write a new article just on them -- who they are, why they believe what they believe (and then you can link it to this article)? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
::Would you please readd the Geertz quote where you find more appropriate, I am a little confused as to how to add it to a history of definitions as it would seem to fit in with beliefs described as belonging to the "late 19th century" yet is more recent.
::Are you suggesting a [[preculture]] article? I don't see how I can write such an article if it is actually a straw man argument, if you have knowledge of those who romanticize a precultural state it would be a more appropriate task for you to undertake. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 06:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you wrote an article exploring this notion of "preculture," the idea would not to make it a straw man but to develop it fully. That doesn't mean you have to agree with the idea. We have an article on Naziism, and I don't think any of the people who contributed to it are Nazis (hope this isn't too strong an analogy). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
==Geertz==
Hyacinth, can you elaborate on the Geertz reference, please? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 10:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Lists of cultures==
Why are not all contemporary countries listed? Why are local cultures listed that appear to have been chosen at random (Sydney, Stockholm, Wales)? Is the separate [[list of national culture articles]] necessary? [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 01:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:My guess is that those listed were the ones that had articles at the time. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Probably. But, red links are better than no links at all... [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::I don't think red links are appropriate in this context. And because of the number of countries that exist, the red links could outnumber the blue links. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::There's no point in trying to hide the fact that those articles are missing. On the contrary, making the problem visible invites people to start them. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 05:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why don't we wait for someone else to weigh in and see what they say? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: I agree with Fred -- red links are typically included in wikipedia entries to motivate people to start them. I don't know if that's how it works in practice, but that's how its typically done, iirc. Also, doesn't it make /more/ sense to have the separate page for national cultures contain /all/ references to the cultures of countries? There is a separate page for anthropology and the list of anthropologists, for instance.
The list is mostly mine. I did, precisely, list the existing useful articles. Think of this as mainly a "see also", not mainly an open-ended list. We do ''not'' routinely add non-existent articles in the "see also" section of an article.
I think it would make sense to create a separate article [[List of contemporary national cultures]], link it from here, and make a very full list ''in that separate article'', but the present article is not the place to add a bunch of links to nonexistent articles. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
'''But''' isn't the important point that this isn't a "list of cultures," as the heading proclaimed? It's actually a "list of wikipedia articles about national cultures." Since that doesn't make a very catchy (or relevant) heading, maybe we should just have it as a link. (anon 25 April 2005)
I realize this is an old discussion but since then I have completed(or I think I have completed) the list of national articles that wikipedia has it should probably be kept instead of merged.[[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=="Vulgar" and "monadic"==
I think the word "monadic" will be unfamiliar to many readers, but I'm not sure how to replace it. And the context around "vulgar" doesn't make clear which meaning of the word is intended. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 05:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:I was the one who put in the word "monadic." I guess I hoped if someone didn't know the word they would figure it out from context. But if you can figure out a better word ("totalizing?") that is okay by me. I did ''bot'' introduce the word "vulgar," but I assume from context it means "coars." "crude," or "common." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::No biggie either way, but I wonder whether it might be better to use "crude," "coarse", or "common," in that they are differences of at least degree. But maybe the ambiguity is intentional. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 06:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Proposal of how this entry should be structured==
I've been thinking about this entry and thought it might be good to have it broken down into the following topics:
1. History of the Concept
2. Culture as Cultivation
3. Cultures in the Plural
4. The anthropological concept of culture
5. Culture change
Something like that. How about it? [[User:Alex Golub|Rex]] 23:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure everything will fit that structure, but it's a good framework as far as it goes. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 00:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Uh, it doesn't sound reasonable to me. Can you explain the rationale? Here is why it doesn't sound reasonable to me. First, the "culture as cultivation" really isn't popular today, although it was very popular in the 19th century -- so wouldn't that go in the "history" section? Also, all the content on culture change deals with anthropological theory, so shouldn't that go into the anthropology sextion? Ditto, cultures in the plural -- isn't this too an anthropology development? These are issues I have based on the contents. Now, I have other issues based on the structure alone. "History" is a principle that suggests a distinction between past and present. "anthropology" is an academic discipline. "culture as cultivation" is a popular usage. Do ytou see how each of these three are categorically different? Each one suggests a different logic to organizing the article; to have all three in one article is like mixing apples and oragnes. It seems to me that we could divide the article into two sections: past and present uses of the term. OR we can divide it into three or more sections: "culture" in the social sciences; in the humanities; in the natural sciences. Or we can divide it into two sections: culture used by academics, culture as used popularly. I am sure you can come up with other proposals. But do you see what I mean? I have suggest three possibilities and in each one, the parts reflect the same logic. I just do not see any logic at all in what you propose. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 20:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Culture as cultivation is one of the most frequently ways that people use the word culture today. It is this usage of culture (more or less) that was previously in the first paragraph of the entry: "Many... us[e] the word ''culture'' to refer only to [[elite]] goods and activities such as ''[[haute cuisine]]'', high fashion or ''[[haute couture]]'', [[museum]]-caliber [[art]] and [[classical music]]". At one point in your comments you say that it "isn't really popular today" and then later on you say it is a "popular usage". So I'm confused why you think it's not a proper topic. Culture in the plural is a concept that predates the anthropological concept of culture, as the current entry point out. It also currently circulates outside anthropology as well. Thus it is both 'deeper' and 'wider' than how anthropologists use the term and so should not be subsumed within it. 'Cultural difference', 'multiculturalism', 'cultural rights' and other ideas of there being plural, distinct 'cultures' which give one a 'cultural identity' is one of the most commonly used ways we have to discuss differences between groups (it is also commonly at variance with how anthropologists use the term). So I think this is appropriate to discuss all these meanings as well.
:The anthropological concept of culture, at least what I had in mind, is of a very particular sort: it refers to the structured, enduring, arbitrary, conventional intersubjective understanding which is underdetermined by perception. It seems appropriate to have a section on this technical usage. 'Culture change' -- which actually means something like social change -- is broad subject and I thought others expressed interest in having a separate section on it. It could be moved into the 'anthropological' section of the article. I also think it is useful to have a brief discussion of the concept's history and background to explain its origin. Not sure why that seems unreasonable.
:"History", "anthropology", and "culture as cultivation" are categorically different. That is why I suggested putting them in different categories. The logic behind arranging them this way is that these are the topics readers would benefit from the most, imho. The concept itself is not tidy, unfortunately. But for this very reason I think it makes more sense to be responsive to how the concept is structured rather than impose an elegant logical structure on the entry which may not actually provide people with the clearest presentation of the concept. Thanks for your feedback. [[User:Alex Golub|Rex]] 21:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is more intelligible; thanks for taking the time to explain. I happen not to agree with your claim that culture as cultivation is still among the most frequently used ways of talking about culture, but it isn't worth arguing over. I would suggest picking one principle as an overall frame work, and then incorporating the different themes you see accordingly. In other words, either arrange the whole thing historically, making "culture as cultivation," "culture as constellation," and so on sub-topics, as they arise -- or, dividing the article into distinct subthemes, and writing each section historically -- but not having any one "historical" section. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Classical Music==
From the article: ''For example, cultivated afficianados of classical music''',''' would argue that music by working-class people such as punk rock is vulgar, and lacks the sophistication and virtuosity of opera. Similarly, they would argue that the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia was also simplistic and barbaric.''
Err, aside from the gramatical error, are you sure we should be saying this? You're just appealing to (and reinforcing) an outdated stereotype that people who like classical music are snobs. Certainly not all classical music "afficianoados" think punk rock is vulgar or that aboriginal music is barbaric. Infact, I'd guess classical music fans would be less likely to make these sorts judgements than the general population. --19:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use "culture" this way. That is the crucial point. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 19:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture "this way" (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job. (Keep in mind "[[high culture]]" is a very different term and concept than "culture." If you want to bitch about the elitism of [[high culture]]--which it probably deserves--do it there not here.) -- 00:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Sl is talking about the term "culture", and how people use the ''term'', not actual culture. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, but the above quote addresses neither culture nor the term "culture."
:Well, I didn't write it myself -- I'll take your use of "your" generically. But then it includes you too -- it includes all editors. If you can see a way to make it clearer, go ahead and edit it! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::I cannot quickly find a source which openly states that classical music is superior, but I would say its more accurate to say that many, Julian Johnson (''Who Needs Classical Music?: Cultural Choice and Musical Value'', 2002) for example, argue that classical music serves different functions, making classical and other musics incomparable. Perhaps one of you would like to add this information? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 01:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Well, as far as the stereotypes go, I'm perfectly content with the current version: ''For example, someone who used 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might argue that classical music is more refined than music by working-class people such as punk rock or the indigenous music traditions of aboriginal peoples of Australia.'' However, I still don't see the point of this statement, since aruging "that classical music is more refined than [other] music" has nothing to do with how people use "culture." We might as well be saying, "somone who uses 'culture' in the sense of 'cultivation' might like the taste of wine."
:::"The point is there really are people who continue to think this and the article must make clear that there are people who use 'culture' this way. That is the crucial point."
:::'''See [[Wikipedia:No original research]].'''
:::[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I read that statement the first time around. Did you read my response? -- "Right, but the above quote doesn't even address how people use culture. If your goal was to make it clear that people use culture 'this way' (intentionally vague?), then you didn't do a very good job." (as far as signing my posts, I'm not a registered user, so I doubt it'd do much good)
If you actually go to [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]], you will read that "It is proper [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]] to sign your posts on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|Talk page]]s. ''This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog''."
And more pertinent to you: "If you chose to contribute to Wikipedia without [[Wikipedia:How to log in|logging in]], the tildes will be converted to your [[IP address]] to be displayed as your signature. (An [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|account]] actually provides you with ''more'' anonymity, if you are concerned about IP privacy issues.) You can also consider manually signing your posts with a pseudonym or tag such as ''--anon'' (although your IP address will still be stored in the page history if you edit without logging in)." Thanks. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 04:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== recent revert ==
I reverted an addition that with the advent of the WWW we can now consciously create culture. First, this is not new (people have been doing this in every known society for recorded history. Also, the paragraph as written violated NOR. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]]
==Improvement Drive==
The article [[Culture of Italy]] has been listed to be improved on [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive]]. You can add your vote [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive#nominations|there]] if you would like to support the article.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
== relativism ==
I reverted a recent addition for two reasons. First, "culture" is ''not'' relevant to all discussions of relativism. Second, the idea of "cultural relativism" came after the idea of culture, not before; i.e. it was a certain conception of culture that produced the idea of cultural relativism. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 19:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:Please reconsider. The word and concept "culture" obviously had to preceed the term "cultural relativism" however the problem of cultural relativism is as old as philosophy and was only sharpened by the coming into being of the term "culture" in it's two conflicting modern senses. This conflict between the two definitions, which is accepted in the current article, is due to the old problem. The question is whether it matters what sort of culture one "cultivates", or are they all equal. For example, was Nazi culture equal to English culture in value. The term "culture" is not an everyday word like "red" that can be considered seperately from the controversy that it embodies. Andrew Lancaster
:I hope the new proposal I just put in is a reasonable compromise. Andrew Lancaster
The concept of cultural relativism is not as old as philosophy. To say that it is is anachronistic and inaccurate. Your Nazi/English example shows only that you do not understand what "cultural relativism" is. How much research have you done on this topic? Can you share your sources with us? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Rather than just shooting your words back at you I'll just say that this should be handled as a rational discussion, and not as a rank pulling exercise. So please put your argument on the table, and not your qualifications.
1. Do you deny that the ancient Greeks were aware of the problems involved in the fact that different ethnoi (peoples) have different nomoi (rules, understandings, conventions, traditions, stories, lore etc)? Was it not one of the most famous and difficult themes of Socratic political philosophy that there is a very problematic distinction to be made between what is true by nature and true by convention (nomos)? I'd say that some interpreters of Herodotus would say that his work is built around the theme of considering "cultural relativism".
2. Do you deny that the term nomoi refers to the same sorts of things which we now call culture?
3. The Nazi/England example is extreme, and intended to be so. That does not make it wrong. It is also not wrong simply because it is not an example of the more often discussed contrast between civilization and un-civilized cultures. Would a contrast between head-hunters and fishermen be better?
I think question 3 is where you need to do the most explaining. One possible explanation of your comments is that it is obvious to everyone that some things really are bad, whereas others are not. In other words, like the Greeks you're saying that there are some things true by nature and other things true by convention. But this is ignoring the very core of the matter, which is what I was trying to avoid, and it also ignores the fact that a majority of people in one of the largest countries in Europe could miss what is supposedly obvious. But maybe I'm wrong and you had something else in mind? Why not put it on record? At the very least you'll be educating one person.
Andrew Lancaster
:Asking you to cite sources is not pulling rank,m it is merely asking you to comply with our policies. I do not understand your q. number 3, or you are just talking about something else. At the very least we would have to distinguiosh between different ''kinds'' of cultural relativisms and be ver careful to explain when and where they developed; we must also make a clear distinction between cultural relativism and moral relativism, which I think you are sometimes perhaps thinking of. Also, if someone reputable has in a published or otherwise citable source argued that Herodotus and Platonic political philosophers were anticipating or grappling with cultural relativism fine put that in but cite the sources. The only reason I am not answering your question directly is because my opinion is not relevant, it violates our policy. What is relevant is my question to you, asking you to cite your sources. But regarding #2, I cannot answe whether "nomoi" corresponds to our concept of culture because Kroeber and Kluckholn delineated over 200 defintions/conceptualizations of culture. I would NOT be surprised that there be a sijmilarity between one of their definitions of culture and "nomoi" but I bet that is not because Herroditus shared our understanding of culture but rahter Heroditus influenced many 19th century scholars who studied him. SR
== Culture in other animals ==
This section makes controversial claims and gives no citations:
* Chimpanzees washing sweet potatoes: this sounds tremendously like a paraphrase of the paper misinterpreted in the book ''The Hundredth Monkey''. But that was a study of macaques, not chimpanzees. [http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HMP.htm]
*"…one chimpanzee tribe may eat a certain type of nut even though the relevant tree is few in number. In another area, where the tree is widespread, the local tribes may ignore the nuts." Citation?
*"Birds in the United Kingdom 'all of a sudden' learned to break the tops of milk bottles to steal the contents. This behaviour rapidly spread across the country and was a factor in the fall in popularity of door-to-door milk deliveries." Citation?
*"Some" (who? yes, it's been said, but by whom?) "have posited that the identification of culture as a property unique to humans is a result of [[homocentrism]]." (Isn't the prevailing term "anthropocentrism"?)
* Yes, I have heard that there is tool use among primates, but a citation would be good here, too.
[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Jmabel, these are all great comments and I agree. I do not have the resources to respond (nor was it I who wrote these, I don´t think at least) but if others don't try to correct these problems/fill in gaps, I will try when I can. SR
:: So should we remove this until it has some decent citation? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
IDENTITY
Nice insights in article.
CHARACTERISTICS
An old encyclopedia article said there are four elements common to all cultures: language, technology, art and social institutions. What are the characteristics common to all cultures? In an encyclopedia, articles about various countries will list many common elements: flag, political boundaries, exports, history, etc. A person could study each of these elements, using several examples. For example, one could study foreign foods, and pick the foods of Spain, France and Japan as samples. Or a person could start with one country or political unit and study all the characteristics of that country. For example, one could choose Germany and study their clothes, music, paintings, etc. What is the defining characteristic of a culture? Political boundaries? Language? Ethnic origins?
ORGANIZATION
How are cultures organized? What are the parts? What is the structure of the parts? What is the function of each part? In other words, what are the spatial characteristics? Should we start with the organization of people or geographical considerations? Does the human group define the culture or does geography define it? If language defines a culture, and everybody now has a language, when did new languages stop originating? How do new languages begin? Can we ever have a completely new language to originate in the future?
DYNAMICS
What are the energy characteristics of cultures?
How do cultures originate? How do they change? How do new ones develop? Does the process of colonization reveal most of the dynamics involve in the creation of new cultures? How is stability created? What can we learn by researching the kinds of languages spoken in a particular country? Do villages evolve into cities, or are they planned before being founded, as evidenced by their layouts?
APPLICATION
Can people change their cultural heritages. If so, to what extent? To what extent does public policy control the characteristics of a culture? For example, how many countries have a government agency which determines the official way to spell words in a language?
[[User:Seventhpower|Seventhpower]] 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:Seventhpower, your comments are thoughtful but make a number of assumptions. NPOV is a core policy at Wikipedia. Different anthropologists and others have viewed culture differently and we cannot take sides. A few examples, responding to your comment. (1) Characteristics. In part, this is an empirical question and I do not think anyone has done enough systematic research comparing all cultures to determine what all have in common. If some have ''claimed'' that all cultures have four elements, we can ''quote'' that claim, or cite it, ''as just one claim.'' But I know many who would take issue with the claim you provide as an example. Two areas of disagreement: what we in the West call art may not, by the local definitions of a particular culture, be "art," that is, what people mean by art is culturally constructed and this construction is not present in all cultures. Also, there is a long tradition in British social anthropology and American cultural anthropology that does not include social institutions as a part of culture. (2) Only specific schools of thought described or analyzed cultures in terms of their structure (e.g. students of Durkheim, like Radcliffe-Brown and Levi-Strauss) and the functions of its elements (Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski). Many scholars have actively opposed these ways of describing cultures. (3) dymanics. I think most scholars today agree culture is dynamic. But the statements and questions you present reflect the views of specific anthropologists, like Leslie White and Richard Newbold Adams (energetics) and Lewis Henry Morgan and Julian Steward (evolution) — again, many anthropologists reject the validity of viewing culture these ways. To be clear: I am '''not''' opposed to introducing these topics int the article. But I '''would''' object to introducing them as if these are universal elements of culture or universally shared ways of talking about culture. That would violate NPOV. We need to be very specific about who has held these views and in what context, and invite other editors to add other views. SR
== Article Organization - Personal note ==
I had home-school for my children and in our situation I was able to create my own curriculum. I had to take large amounts of information gathered from research, process it quickly and condense it into something meaningful to me so I could set up an activity for the children on a particular subject. For resources, I had textbooks, library, and encyclopedia. The encyclopedia was especially useful because it would condense massive amounts of information into a few manageable categories which could easily be remembered. Then I could start with 5-10 key elements and branch out from the top down. After looking up very broad categories over and over, I started to have a basis of comparison.
I especially remember the article on Culture from the 1962 World Book Encyclopedia. It said that there were four elements common to all cultures: language, technology, art and social institutions. This was something simple that I could visualize and work with. It also said that there are three elements common to all languages: sound, vocabulary and grammar. The article on Language itself was not as good as the Culture section on Language. The elements of language explanation was very inspiring. After reading it, I felt that I could go out and learn any language. First, just listen to the sounds, without worrying about pronouncing words. Then try to pronounce the words. Then go on to vocabulary. Then grammar. What a contrast to high school Latin, where the first day is grammar!
The article on The World gave a very nice definition of Science. It said that Science is an organized body of knowledge about nature, or something to that effect. The article on Science itself did not give a nice definition like that.
Once I saw a list of the elements of physics, without the formulas, using simple abbreviations. It may have been in a book called Nature's Electricity. The list started out with M for mass, L for distance, T for time, L/T for speed, etc. for acceleration, momentum, force, pressure, work, energy, power, etc. I tried to take some of those elements and ask what are the elements common to studying ANY subject. I came up with a list that has worked well over a long period of time:
Identity: definition, characteristics, examples
Organization: (spatial characteristic)
structure, parts, function
Processes: time characteristics
Dynamics: (energy characteristics)
cause & effect, cycles, relationships
Applications: (directional characteristics)
Many encyclopedia articles incorporate these categories into their articles, which makes for uniformity.
The first subject we studied using this "method" was boats. First we found examples of boats. Then we studied the parts of boats. Then we went through the process of building a boat, etc. It was all very thrilling. We launched the boats down in the creek which empties into the river. The children have pictures of this in their portfolios.
Make this article on Culture as inspiring to others as the 1962 article was to me.
[[User:Seventhpower|Seventhpower]] 04:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:Seventhpower, this is indeed a worthy goal. However, the study of cultures has developed a good deal since the early 1960s (just as has the study of human evolution) and we must make sure our article is up-to-date. If you want to help with this, and I hope you do, one place you might want to start research is Eric Wolf´s ``Europe and the People Without History'' which was written in the 1980s, addresses many of the isues you raise, and was an attempt to synthasize a good deal of research on culture done in the 1960s and 1970s. It sounds like you would also find many of the essays in ''Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts'' by Nigel Rapport and Joanna Overing very, very useful, SR
| 