Wesleyan University

Kultur, Bildung, GeistAuthor(s): Raymond GeussSource:

History and Theory,

Vol. 35, No. 2 (May, 1996), pp. 151-164Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan UniversityStable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505359

Accessed: 30/01/2010 18:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wesleyan University

and

Blackwell Publishing

are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to

History and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

KUL TUR, BILDUNG, GEISTRAYMOND GEUSSABSTRACTIdistinguishhreestrands n the discussionof"culture"n nineteenth- nd earlytwen-tieth-centuryGermany.One is centeredaroundheanalysisof the diverse olkwaysofvarioushumangroups.Asecond focuseson the cultivationof individual alentsandcapacities.Thethirdreatsaestheticxperiencendjudgmentand its relation oformsofsociability.discuss omeof thevariouswaysnwhich hesehree trands f discussioninteracted istoricallyndsuggest omeways n which hestudyof thishistorical pisodemight be relevanto contemporaryiscussionsof "culture."The attemptto say anythingboth general anduseful about the conceptof"culture"mightseem doomed fromtheverystart.IIn their well-known discus-sion Kroeber and Kluckhohn distinguish literallydozensofdifferentsensesinwhich the word"culture" s used.2One might thinkthatifthe anti-essentialistline derivingfrom Nietzsche andthe late Wittgensteinwhich is nowdominantinthe humanitieshas any plausibilityatall,thensurely here.3 If thereis nosingle featureall games havein commonby referenceto which they are allcalled"games"then a fortioriit seemsunlikelythatanythingmuch of interestcouldbe said about the natureof "culture" ngeneral.If itis furtherthe casethatdifferentlanguagescutupthe worlddifferently,itmightbethoughtmerelytocompoundthe difficulties of analready hopelesssituation to discusspur-ported analoguestotheEnglishterm"culture"inanother language.That,however,iswhatIproposeto do for reasonsIwillnow trytoexplain.

1. This paperis a revised versionof a talk I gaveinJanuary 1994 as partof a Round TableDiscussion of thequestion "What isCulture?" at King'sCollege Research Centrein Cambridge.I'm gratefulto the other membersof the Round Table: PeterdeBolla,Ross Harrison, StephenHugh-Jones, andChris Prendergast(all King's College)for help in beginningto think about thisissue. ProfessorsMichael Forster (Universityof Chicago),Pierre Keller (UniversityofCalifornia/Riverside), andQuentin Skinner (Christ'sCollege) madevery helpful commentson the originalversion of this paper.I have not beenable to respond toall of their objectionsand comments ade-quately.2. AlfredKroeberandClydeKluckhohn, "Culture: ACritical Reviewof ConceptsandDefini-tions"inPapersofthePeabodyMuseumofAmericanArcheologyandEthnology47(Cambridge,Mass., 1952).3. FriedrichNietzsche,Zur Genealogieder Moral(Leipzig,1887),II.Abhandlung ?? 12, 13;Ludwig Wittgenstein,PhilosophischeUntersuchungen (Frankfurtam Main,1952), ??1-240.

152RAYMOND GEUSS

Human beings whohave had some experienceof our world have repeatedlymade two kinds of observations about it. Thefirst is that members ofanygiven human group oftenbehave in ways that arevery muchalike,yet differsystematicallyfrom the waysinwhich membersof other groups behave(insimilar circumstances).As Herodotus points out,Greeks cremate their deadfathers andwouldbe horrifiedat the proposal thatthey should eatthem,whereasIndians ("of the tribecalled Callatiae") eat theirdead parents and wouldbeshockedbythesuggestionthat they shouldburnthem.4 Children are generallybrought up to conformwith the habits of the groupto which they (or theirparents) belong.Wespeakhere ofdifferenttraditionalpractices,folkways,customs,andsoon. The secondkindof observationhumans make is thatsomepeoplearebetterat engagingincertain valued forms ofactivitythan others:some canrunfasterthanothers,control themselvesmorefullyunder conditionsofstress, speakmore convincingly,hit amoving animalwitha missile moreoften, paintmore beautiful pictures, andso on. At least for the past twothou-sand yearsor sopeopleinEurope havenoticed that for at leastsome of theseforms ofactivity performancecanbeimproved bycultivating existing aptitudes.People begin to trainfor races, exercise themselvesin forms of self-control,andso on.Inpractice, of course,folkwaysandformsof valuation areinextricablyintertwined; one of thethings thatwill becustomaryina society will be to valuecertainthingsin a certainwayand to cultivatecertain forms of achievement.Herodotus'sGreeks and Indiansdidn'tjustdifferintheirhabitsfordisposingofdead relatives,but eachgroup thoughtitsownway better.Herodotus evenclaimsthatitis ageneraltruth thatpeopleon reflectionwillalways prefertheirowncustoms. Customaryformsofdifferential valuationwillthemselvesbeinfinitely varied.Insome cases relatively clear and determinatecriteriawillbeavailable

somepeoplecan runconsistentlyfaster thanothersandit isn't hardtoagreeonwhoruns fastest

but in othercases even the crudestkindofcompar-isonwill be difficult and controversial

whois thebestpainter?whatparticularformof self-restraintinwhat circumstancesis better than what forms offlam-boyance? Thinkingabout "culture"hasbeen a series ofattemptstoput togethercoherently experienceof thevariabilityofhumanfolkwayswithpeople'ssensethat somewaysofdoing thingsandbehavingare better thanothersanddeservetobecultivated.Given theobscurity,indeterminateness,andcomplexityofthis taskit isn'tverysurprisingthatthehistoryof ourthinkingabouttheseissueshasbeentangledand inchoate.Foranumber ofvery goodreasons we are suspicious nowadaysof claimsthat one cultureissuperiortoothers,whether that means thatthefolkwaysof onegroupare overallbetter than thoseof another or thathighculture istobeprivilegedoverpopularentertainment.Still,thereissomethingself-deludedandhypocriticalabout someof the more extreme formsthissuspicion