Universidad del Rosario Estudios Sociales de la Cultura Alejandro Gonzlez

About Elias and Kuper texts: According to Elias and Kuper, the usage of the word kultur is different in relation to the usage of the word civilization and both of them weave part of the fabric that is culture. The difference between the two is pointed out, at first, in terms of countries: the former is a German word; the latter is from France and England. Obviously, the difference between the two is not a simply manner of geography, bur rather the historical development of two diverse contexts. Leaving aside all the problems related to the development of these words, my questions goes to methodological problems: If kultur, civilization and zivilisation deserve different treatment, depending on the contexts in which they arose: would not this be a problem for reaching a deeper understanding of the word "culture"? Whenever this question arises: to excavate the meaning of "culture", are we assuming or concluding that the term "culture" differ from people to people (or from nation to nation)? How would this disturb the understanding of cultura in Latin American contexts or, in general, other non-European contexts? Is it possible combine or synthetize different aspects of kultur, civilization and zivilisation in order to understand the birth of the word culture? To what extent one should assume, at least provisionally, a concept of culture that embraces different shades, for example, the shades that kultur, civilization and zivilisation contain?