Introduction to Cultural Studies < Supplement >

Cultural studies has made its presence felt in academic work within the arts, the
humanities, the social sciences and even science and technology. It appears to
be everywhere and everyone seems to be talking about it.

What is Culture?
The ambiguity of the concept of culture is
notorious. Some anthropologists consider
culture to be social behaviour. For others,
it is not behaviour at all, but an abstraction
from behaviour. To some, stone axes and
pottery, dance and music, fashion and
style constitute culture; while no material
object can be culture to others.

Yet for still other, culture exists only in the

mind.

One of the oldest definitions of culture

was given by the British anthropologist, Sir
E.B. Tylor (1832–1917) in the opening lines
of his book, Primitive Cultures (1871):

Here are a few more attempts to define culture …

According to American anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901–78)
"Culture is that learned behaviour of a society or a subgroup"

  
According to Raymond Williams,
"Culture includes the organisation of production, the structure of the family, the
structure of institutions which express or govern social relationships, the
characteristic forms through which members of the society communicate."
 
According to Clifford Geertz (b. 1926), Professor of Social Science at Princeton
University "Culture is simply the ensemble of stories we tell ourselves about
ourselves."
 
What is the Subject of Cultural
Studies?
Not surprisingly, cultural studies does
not have a clearly defined subject area.
Its starting point is a very broad and all-
inclusive notion of culture that is used to
describe and study a whole range of
practices.

Cultural studies takes whatever it needs

from any discipline and adopts it to suit
its own purposes.
 
All this makes it very difficult, if not
impossible, to agree on any basic
definition of the nature of the beast that
is cultural studies. Cultural studies is not
one thing, it is many things. It straddles
the intellectual and academic landscape
from old established disciplines to new
political movements, intellectual practices and modes of inquiry such as
Marxism, feminism, post-colonialism etc. It moves from discipline to discipline,
methodology to methodology, according to its own concerns and motivations.
 
This is why cultural studies is not a discipline. It is, in fact, a collective term for
diverse and often contentious intellectual endeavours that address numerous
questions, and consists of many different theoretical and political positions.

Characteristics of Cultural Studies

 Yet the history of cultural studies has provided it with certain distinguishable
characteristics that can often be identified in terms of what cultural studies aims
to do.
1. Cultural studies aims to examine its subject matter in terms of cultural
practices and their relation to power. Its constant goal is to expose power
relationships and examine how these relationships influence and shape cultural
practices.
 
2. Cultural studies is not simply the study of culture as though it was a discrete
entity divorced from its social or political context. Its objective is to understand
culture in all its complex forms and to analyse the social and political context
within which it manifests itself.
 
3. Culture in cultural studies always performs two functions: it is both the object
of study and the location of political criticism and action. Cultural studies
aims to be both an intellectual and a pragmatic enterprise.
 
4. Cultural studies attempts to expose and reconcile the division of
knowledge, to overcome the split between tacit (that is, intuitive knowledge
based on local cultures) and objective (so-called universal) forms of knowledge.
It assumes a common identity and common interest between the knower and
the known, between the observer and what is being observed.
 
5. Cultural studies is committed to a moral evaluation of modern society and to
a radical line of political action. The tradition of cultural studies is not one of
value-free scholarship but one committed to social reconstruction by critical
political involvement. Thus cultural studies aims to understand and change the
structures of dominance everywhere, but in industrial capitalist societies in
particular.

Origins of Cultural Studies

The term “cultural studies” derives from the Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham, established in 1964. In 1972,
the Centre published the first issue of Working Papers in Cultural Studies with
the specific aim “to define and occupy a space” and “to put cultural studies on
the intellectual map”. Since then, the work done at the Centre has acquired a
mythological status in the field.

The works of Richard Hoggart (b. 1918), Raymond Williams (1921–88), E.P.
Thompson (1924–93) and Stuart Hall (b. 1932), all of whom were associated with
CCCS at various times, are regarded as the foundational texts of cultural studies.

  
Limitations of Cultural Studies
A first problem which appears in cultural studies is the one of language and
material. Whereas Marxism considers culture to be related to the material mode
of production and hence argues that the material determines culture,
structuralism regards culture as signification and part of an autonomous
language system .

A second problem is the textual character of culture. Culture can be read as

texts which produce meanings. However, textual determinism can lead to the
distinction between texts and the acting subject which are in fact intertwined.

A third problem poses the

location of culture. Culture is
located as it is limited by
nationality, ethnicity or space.
With the rise of globalisation
however, the locality of culture
got challenged. Increasing
movement and communication
facilities together with trans-local
processes allowed distinct
cultures to mix and hence,
culture became less locally
bounded and rather a hybrid
form in the global space.

A fourth issue is the limit of

rationality. Cultural studies uses rationality in order to explain culture. However,
rational thinking is likely to control and dominate emotions and affection which
play within culture as well and make culture a matter of perspective and non-
universal.

A fifth problem is the issue of truth. Cultural studies increasingly rejected the
notion of one universal truth. Truth is rather subjective and determined by
independent interpretations. However, truth evolves through discourses which
are constrained to specific cultures.

 How to do Cultural Studies

To understand how cultural studies is done, we need to equip ourselves with a

few of its key concepts and principles.
 
A major concept in cultural studies is that of sign. A sign has three basic
characteristics.
- It has a concrete form.
- It refers to something other than itself.
- And it can be recognised by most people as a sign.
…what the sign refers to, its mental association, is known as the signified.
 
The theory of signs developed from the work of Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de
Saussure (1857–1913). He argued that language is a cultural phenomenon; and
it generates meaning in a special way. Language produces meaning by a system
of relationships, by producing a network of similarities and differences.

The principles which govern linguistic systems also organise other type of
communication systems, such as writing, film and fashion.
 
The way we dress, what we eat and how we socialise also communicate things
about ourselves, and thus can be studied as signs.

Signs, Codes and Texts

Signs are often organised as codes governed by explicit and implicit rules
agreed upon by members of a culture or social group. . A system of signs may
thus carry encoded meanings and messages that can be read by those who
understand the codes. A signifying structure composed of signs and codes is a
text that can be read for its signs and encoded meanings.
 
Representation
Representation refers to the construction of meanings through several means
such as images or sounds. However, meanings are connected to specific social
contexts and are therefore understood differently according to distinct
circumstances.

The process, and the products, that gives signs their particular meaning is
representation. Through representation, abstract and ideological ideas are given
concrete form. Thus the idea/sign “Indian” is given a specific ideological shape
in the way “Indians” have been represented in colonial literature – in the novels

 of Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) and E.M. Forster (1879–1970) for example – as

cowards, effeminate, untrustworthy.

The representative entity outside the self – that is, outside one’s own gender,
social group, class, culture or civilisation – is the Other.

The most common representation of the Other is as the darker side, the binary
opposite of oneself: we are civilised, they are barbaric; the colonists are hard-
working, the natives are lazy; heterosexuals are good and moral, homosexuals
are immoral and evil.

The notion of discourse binds all these concepts into a neat package. A
discourse consists of culturally or socially produced groups of ideas containing
texts (which contain signs and codes) and representations (which describe power
in relation to Others). As a way of thinking, a discourse often represents a
structure of knowledge and power.

In some theories, a function of language i.e. representation conceived of as

(i) the representation of thoughts in language,
(ii) the linguistic representation of the world of empirical experience.

In social terms, representation has

(i) a political meaning (in the sense of meaning the representation through
institutional bodies or pressure groups of the interests of political subjects—a
notion inextricably linked with modern, liberal conceptions of the democratic
process), and
(ii) a more nuanced meaning, which has linked the practices and norms of
representing and which may, for example, be used in the mass media, in
order to present images of particular social groups.

In sense 2(ii), representation does not necessarily signify the representing of the
interests of the group or individual represented. A group can be represented in
a manner which might be conceived of as stereotyping them. Thus, in this
context, ‘representation’ may be characterised as misrepresentation: as the
‘presentation’ or construction of identity. Such constructions of identity may be
closely allied to questions of ideology and power, and to the forms of discourse
implicated in the procedures whereby such images are created. Thus, the
construction of concepts relating to issues of gender, race or sexuality are
questions of representation.

 Sense 2(ii) is, in many ways, a matter related to senses 2(i) and 1(ii). In terms of
the representation of political subjects (2(i)), the constitution of modes of
representation may have an important role to play within the political process, in
so far as such issues as those concerned with the construction of discourses
surrounding matters of race or ethnicity can also be conceptualised as being
political issues. Likewise, the view that language may have a role in constructing
‘reality’, rather than simply reflecting it (1(ii)), is an important one in this
connection; for, if we were to be convinced that language does not merely
‘mirror’ the world of experience but constructs it, the same must go for its role in
the world of social experience. The question of the role of representation can
also be raised in the context of discourses of knowledge.

Power
A term which has a variety of meanings. Most usually, power is taken to mean
the exercise of force or control over individuals or particular social groups by
other individuals or groups. Power, in this view, is something extrinsic to the
constitution of both individuals and society. For example, the theory of the role
of the state in the writings of liberalism normally conceives of legislative power
in terms of limitations on the state’s ability to use justifiable force with regard to
the behaviour of individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. On such a view, it
does not follow that the exercise of power is a priori coercive in nature, since
power exercised within the limits of legality is taken to be justly exercised. On
the other hand, liberals would regard any exercise of power which compels
individuals to behave in ways that they would not freely choose as coercive.
 
Power and authority are not necessarily synonymous. Thus, for example, the
seventeenth-century political philosopher James Harrington drew a distinction
between de facto power (the possession of power as a matter of fact) and de
jure authority (authority by right, i.e. by means of justification). Harrington notes
that one may have the one without the other. Power without authority expresses
for him the essential feature of the modern or ‘Gothic’ form of government,
which corresponds with the de facto possession of power by a monarch, who is
not answerable to those citizens who fall under his or her jurisdiction and
thereby rules without the authority of their consent. Likewise, Foucault conceives
of power as existing not as something that is exercised over individuals or
groups, but as being constitutive of both the relations which exist between
groups and hence equally of individual and group identities themselves.
 
 

 Popular Culture
A simple definition of the term ‘popular culture’ as the culture that appeals to, or
that is most comprehensible by, the general public may conceal a number of
complexities and nuances of its use within cultural studies. The term is frequently
used either to identify a form of culture that is opposed to another form, or as a
synonym or complement to that other form. The precise meaning of ‘popular
culture’ will therefore vary, for example, as it is related to folk culture, mass
culture or high culture. In addition, popular culture may refer either to individual
artefacts (often treated as texts) such as a popular song or a television
programme, or to a group’s lifestyle (and thus to the pattern of artefacts,
practices and understandings that serve to establish the group’s distinctive
identity).

Theories of mass culture (that were dominant in American and European

sociology in the 1930s and 1940s) tended to situate popular culture in relation
to industrial production, and in opposition to folk culture. While folk culture was
seen as a spontaneous production of the people, mass society theories focused
on those forms of popular culture that were subject to industrial means of
production and distribution (such as cinema, radio and popular music) and
theorised them as being imposed on the people. The approach therefore
tended to assume that the audience were passive consumers of the goods foist
upon them. The message and purpose of these goods were interpreted within
the context of a more or less sophisticated theory of ideology, so that the mass
of the people were seen to be manipulated through the new mass media.
 
Identity
The issue of identity is central to cultural studies, in so far as cultural studies
examines the contexts within which and through which both individuals and
groups construct, negotiate and defend their identity or self-understanding.
Cultural studies draws heavily on those approaches to the problem of identity
that question what may be called orthodox accounts of identity. Orthodoxy
assumes that the self is something autonomous (being stable and independent
of all external influences). Cultural studies draws on those approaches that hold
that identity is a response to something external and different from it (an other).

For Freud, identity rests on the child’s assimilation of external persons. The self is
structured through the relationship of the ego, id and superego. While the id is
the instinctive substrate of the self, and the superego, crucially, is the
constraining moral consciousness that is internalised in the process of
psychological development, the ego may be understood either as the
combination of the id and superego, or as an agency separate from these two.

 The latter interpretation is, in the current context, possibly the more interesting,
for it suggests that the ego is never self- identical. The identity of the dominant
group in society therefore depends upon its construction of its own other. In
Foucault’s later writings, he turns to the problem of the construction of the ‘self
(especially in relation to sexuality) through its positioning within discourses’.

The recognition that identity is not merely constructed, but depends upon some
other, opens up the theoretical space for marginal or oppressed groups to
challenge and renegotiate the identities that have been forced upon them in the
process of domination. Ethnic identities, gay and lesbian identities and female
identities are thus brought into a process of political change.
 
Articulation
In English “articulate” refers to speaking well or clearly. That is not the sense
that the word is meant in cultural studies.

It is specifically an analysis of how some person or group that has specific

interests tries to connect other people, groups, economic arrangements (what
Marx called means of production), ideas, and property to carry out their
interests. Even more specifically it is an analysis of how such a person or group
tries to force different sorts of objects to act or envision themselves as a group
even though there are many indications that they are different. It helps to
understand that articulation came out of Marxist theory as a way of avoiding
“reductionism” (i.e., explaining everything as the cause of only one thing; in
Marxism traditionally everything in the world happened because of class, class
struggle and economic struggle). Rather than reducing everything to economics
articulation examines how different elements are combined: race, economics,
sexuality, and language, for instance.

The joining together of two social forces in a structured and hierarchical

relationship. The term emerges in Marxist, and analyses of the mode of
production. At any given historical moment, one mode of production is
dominant. It does not, however, exclude other modes, but rather forces their
adaptation to its own needs. Thus, the feudal monarchy may survive in
capitalism, but only in so far as it is adapted to the needs of capitalism. The
concept has been developed in analyses of race, gender and nationalism.

One other important aspect of articulation is that it is a focus on practice rather

than just ideas or economics. There is always someone who is doing the
articulation (speaking, organising, advertising, etc.). It is not an abstract analysis
in the same way that studies of ideology or economic systems can seem to

9



 involve no real, live, interested human beings. The importance of this is that it
makes it much more usable for anthropological understandings of culture, in as
much as it views culture as the acts of human beings (articulations) rather than as
an abstract set of ideas that we are all made of.
 
Acculturation
Acculturation has been defined in many ways and various definitions are
provided to give a better understanding of the concept. Acculturation is a
process that can occur when two or more cultures interact . Furthermore, John
Berry defined acculturation as a process concerning two or more cultural groups
“with consequences for both; in effect however, the contact experiences have
much greater impact on the non-dominant group and its members”.

Berry (1980) views acculturation as adaptation, the reduction of conflict, which is

conceptualised in three modes: adjustment, reaction, and withdrawal. He
advocates a three-phase course to acculturation: contact, conflict, and
adaptation. Contact is a core concept to the acculturation process. The nature,
permanence, purpose, and duration of contact contribute to acculturation
phenomena. Berry states that “the least acculturation may take place where
there is no purpose (contact is accidental), where trade is mutually desired, or
where contact is short-lived; the greatest acculturation will take place where the
purpose is a deliberate takeover of a society (e.g., by invasion) or of its skills or
beliefs (e.g., by settlement)”.

Berry (1994, 1997) later posited two basic dimensions of acculturation:

maintenance of original cultural identity and maintenance of relations with other
groups. By extension, he advocates four acculturation strategies: integration,
separation, assimilation and marginalisation. Integration refers to those
individuals who value both cultural maintenance and intergroup relations. Those
who advocate cultural maintenance but do not value intergroup relations are
described as separatists. Assimilation refers to a rejection of cultural identity and
the adoption of the host culture. Marginalisation describes those who value
neither cultural maintenance nor intergroup relations. Those who practice the
strategy of integration are hypothesised to experience the fewest difficulties in
adaptation.
For instance, integration involves immigrants accepting the new culture, while
maintaining close ties with their original culture. These immigrants learn and
follow local customs without losing their bond with their customs from their
homeland. They are both highly acculturated and enculturated (the process by
which an individual learns the traditional content of a culture and assimilates its
practices and values). Assimilation, on the other hand, involves immigrants who

10

 totally accept the new culture, and reject their original culture. These immigrants
will learn the language and follow local customs so thoroughly that no trace of
their original heritage remains. 

Case: Indians after immigrating to America, inevitably undergo some type of

adjustment or acculturation process. Though inside the home Indian immigrants
could maintain their culture, once outside the home, the system or society itself
forced Indians into the acculturation process on all levels of culture.
 
Non-reductionism
One of the central tenets of cultural studies is its non-reductionism. Culture is
seen as having its own specific meanings, rules and practices which are not
reducible to, or explainable solely in terms of, another category or level of a
social formation. In particular, cultural studies has waged a battle against
economic reductionism; that is, the attempt to explain what a cultural text
means by reference to its place in the production process. For cultural studies,
the processes of political economy do not determine the meanings of texts or
their appropriation by audiences. Rather, political economy, social relationships
and culture must be understood in terms of their own specific logics and modes
of development. Each of these domains is ‘articulated’ or related together in
context-specific ways. The non-reductionism of cultural studies insists that
questions of class, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nation and age have their
own particularities which cannot be reduced either to political economy or to
each other.
 
Cultural Materialism
Cultural studies has, for the most part, been concerned with modern
industrialised economies and media cultures organised along capitalist lines.
Here representations are produced by corporations who are driven by the profit
motive. In this context, cultural studies has developed a form of cultural
materialism that is concerned with exploring how and why meanings are
inscribed at the moment of production. That is, as well as being centred on
signifying practices, cultural studies tries to connect them with political
economy. This is a discipline concerned with power and the distribution of
economic and social resources.

Materialism and non-reductionism are two interrelated concepts in cultural

studies. Materialism is tied to the production of cultural meanings. At this point
several questions arise such as who controls the production, how is it distributed
and how does that affect the cultural environment. Hence, as already mentioned
before, cultural meanings are related to a specific context with its own

11

 particularities. Such meanings cannot be reduced what is described as non-

reductionism.
 

Subject/ivity
Subjectivity is related to identity as subjectivity refers to the person itself,
whereas identity refers to how it feels to be such a person. Hence, we humans
are not essential, existing subjects but are influenced by our surroundings and
are constructed through it.
The moment of consumption marks one of the processes by which we are
formed as persons. What it is to be a person, viz. subjectivity, and how we
describe ourselves to each other, viz. identity, became central areas of concern
in cultural studies during the 1990s. In other words, cultural studies explores:
- how we come to be the kinds of people we are;
- how we are produced as subjects;
- how we identify with (or emotionally invest in) descriptions of ourselves as
male or female, black or white, young or old.

The argument, known as anti-essentialism, is that identities are not things that
exist; they have no essential or universal qualities. Rather, they are discursive
constructions, the product of discourses or regulated ways of speaking about
the world.

Texts and Readers

A text is a series of signs used to convey a meaning. Note the distinction
between the conveyer of meaning, and the meaning. Conventional texts are
intended as meaningful, natural texts are not. A text could be composed of
words, or off something else -- pictures, for instance. However, these pictures
would ultimately be linguistic if the text is conventional.

There are a number of different texts we could be talking about here:

The Contemporary Text: The text as historians have it today, in the original
language. This text itself may be an edited version, from several sources or
traditions. Of course, this text may well have never been intended by the author,
and never actually existed.

The Historical Text: This is the text the author actually wrote. The autograph.
Problem: the author often made a variety of alterations at different times. For
example the various versions of the Mahabharata and Ramayana found in the
Indian subcontinent and beyond in South East Asia including the disparate

12

 versions seen in Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. The reading of the text
could also be contextual based on an episodic extract, for instance Indonesian
writer Lakshmi Pamuntjak’s novel titled Amba is based out of the character
Amba from the Mahabharata.

The Intended Text: This is the text that the author intended to write, but did not.
Sometimes, the author does not write what they intended, for a variety of
mechanical or psychological reasons. This doesn't necessarily suppose that there
is an idea that precedes the writing, but simply that the writing conditions the
idea, just as the stone conditions the sculpture.

The Ideal Text: This is the text the author should have written. If the writer is
arguing for a point, but does it badly, the philosopher can sometimes make the
argument better. However, this text never has existed. This is important in
reconstruction.

The Theory of Diffusionism

Alfred Kroeber was the dean of American anthropology. According to him,

individuals were unimportant in understanding culture change and other cultural
phenomena and that cultures could be understood only in terms of interacting
cultural patterns and historical events. Those patterns or configurations in effect
controlled individuals. Kroeber was also a configurationist. He sought a means of
ordering data or classifying or characterising societies by their basic patterns.
The idea behind configurationism is that each society has a cluster of
characteristics that mark it as different from all others. Kroeber also added new
dimensions to the culture area concept by correlating environmental conditions
with native American cultures.

Throughout human history, cultures have never been truly isolated and so
contact between neighbouring groups has always existed and has extended
over vast areas. Diffusionism was an attempt to understand the nature of culture
in terms of the origin of culture traits and their spread from one society to
another. Versions of diffusionist thought included the conviction that all cultures
originated from one culture centre (heliocentric diffusion); the more reasonable
view that cultures originated from a limited number of culture centres (culture
circles); and finally the notion that each society is influenced by others but that
the process of diffusion is both contingent and arbitrary.
Diffusion may be simply defined as the spread of a cultural item from its place of
origin to other places. A more expanded definition depicts diffusion as the
process by which discrete culture traits are transferred from one society to

13

another, through migration, trade, war, or other contact. Diffusion may be direct,
indirect or forced.

Direct diffusion: Diffusion is direct when two cultures trade, intermarry or wage
war on one another

Indirect diffusion: Diffusion is indirect when items move from group A to group C
via group B without any firsthand contact between A and C. In this case, group B
might consist of traders or merchants who take products from a variety of places
to new markets. Or group B might be geographically situated between A and C,
so that what it gets from A eventually winds up in C, and vice versa.

Forced diffusion: Diffusion is forced when one culture subjugates another and
imposes its customs on the dominated group.

Basic postulates:
• Any cultural group will adopt a culture trait of other cultural group, only when
it would be meaningful and useful either economically or socially or both.

• In the course of diffusion, culture trait may not remain in original form, but
changes can take place in it due to different environments.

14








 • Process of diffusion of culture traits always follow from a developed culture
into an underdeveloped culture.

• Process of diffusion may create culture change in groups adopting culture of

other groups. Sometimes borrowed culture traits get assimilated easily, but
sometimes, they are responsible for many changes.

• Lack of transport and communication facilities, ocean, river, mountain, desert

etc., operates as obstacles in cultural diffusion.

Limitations and strengths of Diffusionism:

Early diffusionist views were based on erroneous assumptions regarding
humankind’s innovative capacities. Like the unilinear theorists, they maintained
racist assumptions about the inherent inferiority of different non-Western
peoples.

The diffusionist assumed that some people were not sufficiently innovative to
develop their own cultural traits.

Another limitation of the diffusionist approach is its assumption that cultural

traits in the same geographical vicinity will inevitably spread from one society to
another.

Anthropologists find that diffusion is not an inevitable process. Societies can

adjoin one another without exchanging cultural traits.

However, diffusionism as a means of understanding societal development does

have some validity. For example, diffusionism helps explain the emergence of
the classical civilisations of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome. These peoples
maintained continuous contact through trade and travel, borrowing many
cultural traits from one another, such as writing systems.

Conclusion
In the nineteenth and early twentieth century anthropology there was an
important debate between the diffusionist theorists of evolution or independent
invention. Evolutionary theorists held that universal psychological features had
generated similar inventions in different parts of the world, while diffusionist
believed that important cultural elements had been in very few parts---or even in
only one part---of the world and had spread outwards from there by diffusion.
These theorists preferred careful historical- geographical analysis of the
relationships between cultures and culture areas to the speculative history of the

15






 evolutionists. In modern anthropology the concern for historical reconstruction

and the debate between diffusionism and evolutionism has largely given way to
different kinds of study of social structure and historical process, though
acculturation studies maintain an interest in the processes whereby cultural
elements may be transferred from one group to another, and the manner in
which such elements are transformed and adapted to their new context.

Cultural Materialism
Cultural materialism in literary theory and cultural studies traces its origin to the
work of the left-wing literary critic Raymond Williams. Williams viewed culture as
a "productive process", part of the means of production, and cultural
materialism often identifies what he called "residual", "emergent" and
"oppositional" cultural elements. Cultural materialists seek to draw attention to
the processes being employed by contemporary power structures, such as the
church, the state or the academy, to disseminate ideology. To do this they
explore a text’s historical context and its political implications, and then through
close textual analysis note the dominant hegemonic position. They identify
possibilities for the rejection and/or subversion of that position.

Through its insistence on the importance of an engagement with issues of

gender, sexuality, race and class, cultural materialism has had a significant
impact on the field of literary studies, especially in Britain. Cultural materialists
have found the area of Renaissance studies particularly receptive to this type of
analysis. Traditional humanist readings often eschewed consideration of the
oppressed and marginalised in
t e x t u a l re a d i n g s , w h e re a s
cultural materialists routinely
consider such groups in their
engagement with literary texts,
thus opening new avenues of
approach to issues of
representation in the field of
literary criticism.

Risen as an expansion of Marxist

materialism, cultural materialism
explains cultural similarities and
differences as well as models for cultural change within a societal framework
consisting of three distinct levels:   infrastructure, structure and superstructure.
  Cultural materialism promotes the idea that infrastructure, consisting of
“material realities” such as technological, economic and reproductive

16

(demographic) factors mould and influence the other two aspects of culture.
  The “structure” sector of culture consists of organisational aspects of culture
such as domestic and kinship systems and political economy, while the
“superstructure” sector consists of ideological and symbolic aspects of society
such as religion.  Therefore, cultural materialists believe that technological and
economic aspects play the primary role in shaping a society.

Cultural materialism aims to understand the effects of technological, economic

and demographic factors on moulding societal structure and superstructure
through strictly scientific methods.   As stated by Harris, cultural materialism
strives to “create a pan-human science of society whose findings can be
accepted on logical and evidentiary grounds by the pan-human community".
Cultural materialism is an expansion upon Marxist materialism.   Unlike Marxist
theory, cultural materialism views both productive (economic) and reproductive
(demographic) forces as the primary factors which shape society.   Therefore,
cultural materialism explains the structural features of a society in terms of
production within the infrastructure only. As such, demographic, environmental,
and technological changes are invoked to explain cultural variation.

Cultural Materialists believe that all societies operate according to model in

which production and reproduction dominate and determine the other sectors
of culture, effectively serving as the driving forces behind all cultural
development.   They propose that all non-infrastructure aspects of society are
created with the purpose of benefitting societal productive and reproductive
capabilities.  Therefore, systems such as government, religion, law, and kinship
are considered to be constructs that only exist for the sole purpose of promoting
production and reproduction.

Calling for empirical research and strict scientific methods in order to make
accurate comparisons between separate cultures, proponents of cultural
materialism believe that its perspective effectively explains both intercultural
variation and similarities.   As such, demographic, environmental, and
technological changes are invoked to explain cultural variation.

Hence, culture is always political. This is not to say that the crimes of the ruling
class can be read off from a film or an advertisement, any more than they can
from a party political broadcast. Still less does it imply that work which aims for
that level of explicitness is the best or most important. Rather, culture is political
because the social process addressed by political analysis is always embedded
in culture. Williams reversed the terms of the usual analysis. Rather than being a
specialised area in which we see reflections of the political processes governing

17

 society, culture is the "whole way of life" which makes up human society;
political analysis is a specialised framework which can be used to understand it.

Functionalism

Functionalism emphasises the contributions (functions) of each part of society.

For example, family, economy, government and religion are “parts” of a society.
The family contributes to society by providing for the reproduction and care of
new members (people). The economy contributes by providing goods and
services to society. Government contributes by providing laws and leadership.
Religion contributes by emphasising beliefs and values that are important and
sacred to society.
 
Functionalists seek to describe the different parts of a society and their
relationship through the organic analogy. The organic analogy compared the
different parts of a society to the organs of a living organism. The organism was
able to live, reproduce and function through the organised system of its several
parts and organs. Like a biological organism, a society was able to maintain its
essential processes through the way that the different parts interacted together.
Institutions such as religion, kinship and the economy were the organs and
individuals were the cells in this social organism. Functionalist analyses examine
the social significance of phenomena, that is, the function they serve a particular
society in maintaining the whole.

Functionalism, as a school of thought, emerged in the early twentieth century. It

is considered one of the prominent schools of thoughts in order to understand
various aspects of culture and society. Functionalism arose as a reaction to
evolutionism and diffusionism in early twentieth century. Functionalism looks for
the function or part that is played by several aspects of culture in order to
maintain a social system. It is a framework that considers society as a system
whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.

18

 This approach of theoretical orientation looks at both social structure and social
function. It describes the inter-relationship between several parts of any society.
These parts or the constituent elements of a society could be named as norms,
traditions, customs, institutions like economy, kinship, religion etc. These parts
are interrelated and interdependent.

Functionalism was mainly led by Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe Brown.
Two versions of functionalism developed between 1910 and 1930: Malinowski’s
bio-cultural (or psychological) functionalism; and structural-functionalism, the
approach advanced by Radcliffe-Brown. Both were purely functionalists but their
approach slightly differed as Malinowski is known as functionalist but Radcliffe-
Brown is mainly known as Structural Functionalist.

Bio-cultural (or psychological) functionalism:

Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs (reproduction,

food, shelter) and that social institutions exist to meet these needs. There are
also culturally derived needs and four basic "instrumental needs" (economics,
social control, education, and political organisation), that require institutional
devices. Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms or rules,
activities, material apparatus (technology), and a function. He believed that all
customs and institutions in a society are integrated and interrelated so that, if
one changes the other would change as well. Each then is a function of the
other.

> Malinowski believed that human beings have a set of universal biological
needs and various customs and institutions are developed to fulfil those needs.
The function of any practice was the role it played in satisfying these biological
needs such as need of food, shelter etc.

> Malinowski looked at culture, need of people and thought that the role of
culture is to satisfy needs of people. The most basic needs are the biological,
but this does not imply any kind of reductionism, because each level constitutes
its distinct properties and needs, and from the interrelationship of different
levels that culture emerges as an integrated whole. Culture is the kernel of
Malinowski’s approach. It is ‘uniquely human’, for it is not found to exist among
sub- humans. Comprising all those things – material and non-material – that
human beings have created right from the time they separated from their simian
ancestors, culture has been the instrument that satisfies the biological needs of
human beings. It is a need-serving and need-fulfilling system. Because of this

19

 role of culture in satisfying biological needs that Malinowski’s functionalism is

also known as Bio-cultural Functionalism.

> Malinowski said, ‘culture is a need surveying system’. Culture is a system which
satisfies needs such as food, reproduction, security, health, protection etc. As
Malinowski gave importance to individual needs so his functionalism is also
known as Psychological Functionalism.

Malinowski argued that uniform psychological responses are correlates of

physiological needs. He argued that satisfaction of these needs transformed the
cultural instrumental activity into an acquired drive through psychological
reinforcement.

Structural-functionalism:

According to Radcliffe-Brown the importance of social institution is that social

structure is the arrangement of persons which is controlled and defined by
institutions. There are two types of models of studying social structure i.e. actual
social structure and general social structure. ‘Actual social structure’ according to
Brown, the relationship between persons and groups change from time to time.
New members come into being through immigration or by birth, while others go
out of it by death and migration. Besides this, there are marriages and divorces
whereby the members change in several times. Thus, actual social structure
changes many times. On the other hand, the general social structure remain
relatively constant for a long time.

For instance, if one visits a village and again visits that particular village after few
years i.e. after 10 years later he or she finds that many members of the village
have died and others have been enrolled. Now they are 10 years older who
survive than the previous visit. Their relations to one another may have changed
in many respects; but the general structure remains more or less same and
continuing. Thus Radcliffe-Brown held the view that sometimes the structural
form may change gradually or suddenly but even though the sudden changes
occur, the continuity of structure is maintained to a considerable extent.

> Radcliffe-Brown focused on the conditions under which social structures are
maintained. He also believed that there are certain laws that regulate the
functioning of societies.

20

 > He also modified the idea of need and replaced it with necessary conditions
for existence for human societies and these conditions can be discovered by
proper scientific enquiry.

> He argued that the organic analogy should be used carefully. In a biological
organism the functioning of any organ is termed as the activity of that organ. But
in a social system the continuity of structure is maintained by the process of
social life.

Radcliffe-Brown focused on social structure rather than biological needs. He

suggested that a society is a system of relationships maintaining itself through
cybernetic feedback, while institutions are orderly sets of relationships whose
function is to maintain the society as a system. Radcliffe-Brown, inspired by
Augustus Comte, stated that the social constituted a separate "level" of reality
distinct from those of biological forms and inorganic matter. Radcliffe-Brown
argued that explanations of social phenomena had to be constructed within the
social level. Thus, individuals were replaceable, transient occupants of social
roles. Unlike Malinowski's emphasis on individuals, Radcliffe-Brown considered
individuals irrelevant.

The difference between Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski may be noted here. A

concept fundamental to Malinowski – the concept of culture – is a mere
epiphenomenon (secondary and incidental) for Radcliffe-Brown. He believes that
the study of social structure (which for him is an observable entity) encompasses
the study of culture; therefore, there is no need to have a separate field to study
culture. Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs
(reproduction, food, shelter) and these needs are fulfilled by the social
institutions. He talked about four basic "instrumental needs" (economics, social
control, education, and political organisation), that require institutional devices
to get fulfilled. While Radcliffe-Brown focused on social structure rather than
biological needs. He considered society as a system. He looked at institutions as
orderly sets of relationships whose function is to maintain the society as a
system.

Functionalists presented their theoretical and methodological approaches as an

attempt to expand sociocultural inquiry beyond the bounds of the evolutionary
conception of social history. The evolutionary approach viewed customs or
cultural traits as residual artefacts of cultural history. That is, the evolutionist
school postulated that "an observed cultural fact was seen not in terms of what
it was at the time of observation but in terms of what it must stand for in
reference to what had formerly been the case”.

21

From the functionalist standpoint these earlier approaches privileged speculative

theorising over the discovery of facts. Functionalists believed the reality of
events was to be found in their manifestations in the present. Hence, if events
were to be understood it was their contemporary functioning that should be
observed and recorded.

How does Functionalism explain social change?

Functionalists see the parts of society as a whole. A change in one part of
society leads to changes in other parts.

For example, during the Industrial Revolution, changes in the economy (factories
began to replace farms) caused a change in family life. When people lived on
farms, they needed large families to support the work on the farm. But once
families started working in factories and living in the city, the need for large
families disappeared. Parents started having fewer children.

Functionalism assumes (believes) that societies return to a state of stability after

some upheaval (change) has occurred. A society will change over time. But
Functionalists believe that it will return to a stable state. It will return to be
something similar to what is was before.

How does functionalism view values?

According to functionalism there is an agreement on values in a society. For
example, in a country, citizens might agree on the values of democracy, success
and opportunity for all citizens. Because of this agreement on values,
Functionalists say that there is a lot of cooperation in society.

22

 Circuit of Culture

Notions of circuitry are central to Stuart Hall’s conceptualisation of how

communities, cultures, and media constitute each other. This is very explicit in
his encoding/decoding model from 1973. Hall here reserves the term
“circulation” for a delimited process within a broader argument for a circular
movement, or a “reproduction” of culture through media. In this broader view,
however, Hall sees circulation as both technological and hermeneutical
processes through which meaning and/or ideology move into and out of
discursive form. 

The encoding / decoding process is the articulation between moments in the

circuit of culture. It is an intervening or mediating process by which messages or
products transpire from moment to moment— from production to consumption
to waste, etc.

The five interrelated processes implicated in the production and circulation of

meaning through language thereby form a useful framework to consider cultural
meanings of commodities holistically. The Circuit of Culture emphasises the
moments of production, representation, consumption, regulation and identity,
and the interrelated articulations of these moments, and is considered for its
contemporary significance and possibilities for considering the increasingly
complex multiple modes of each of these mutable moments.

23

 1. Representation: how signs are used to present a meaningful concept (e.g.

advertisement)

• What does it signify or what is it a signifier for ? 

• What signifies it (what is it a signified of)? And to whom: to its creators/
authors/doers? To other audience? To you?
• In what context do you find it? What’s going on around it?
• What kind of language and tone and feelings are involved, and how do
they work? 
• How is it structured?
• What genre conventions does it work with? (A war? A chick flick? R&B? A
rave?) What gives it away (i.e., what signifies adherence to these
conventions)? How does it live up to, not live up to, or transcend the
expectations of that genre?
• What does it look, sound, smell, taste, and feel like—to you, and to
others? 
• What argument is it making—intentionally or not? How, and why, does it
make them?

2. Production: how does the product come to be/how is it made

• Who’s paying for it, and/or backing it? Where’s the money (and other
resources) coming from? 
• Who’s making or producing it? What is his/her/their story? Socio-
economic background? Interests (financial and otherwise)? Personal
experiences? Positions (or “biases”)? 
• Who thought it up? (Same questions apply from above.)
• How different are the people who are paying for it, making it, and
thinking it up? All together living in a co-op? All the same person? For
instance: Paid for by a house-spouse in Pantnagar, made by a sweatshop
labourer in Siliguri, designed by a firm in Sriperumbudur?

24

 The Circuit of Culture suggests that meanings are produced at several different
sites and circulated through several different processes and practices. Meaning
making processes operating in any one site are always particularly dependent
upon the meaning making processes and practices operating in other sites for
their effect. Production and the dissemination of a ‘product’ occurs less as
transmission by a discreet ‘producer’ but as circular continuous flow with many in
and outputs, more like the model of an ongoing dialogue within and between all
of the constructive processes.

3. Consumption: how this product is used, what meaning people give to it when
they use it, what kind of social context it is used. Often consumption happens in
very different contexts.

• Are the people who consume it (or use it, or do it) different from the
people who produce it? If so, again as above: how different? 
• Is it something you buy? If so, what does it cost? Who can afford it? Who
can’t? Why? 
• How, where, with whom, and why do you consume (do/watch/read/listen
to/eat) it?
• Is it advertised or marketed? If so, how, where, why, and to whom?

The act of ‘producing’ directly and logically implies the prospect of consumption
and the existence of a consumer. In the context of this study the notion of
‘consumer’ is extended to include not only the client/customer/overseas student
and/or their fee-payer/parent who is appropriating the commodity (an
education/lifestyle), but all of those whose understanding of what this
commodity is – its identity – is formed through their acquisition (consumption) of
meaning through certain representational practices.

Consumption is not the end of a process, but the setting off on another – with
increased understanding. Through considering further questions regarding
reputation, value for money, available facilities, curriculum choices and
infrastructure, these consumers will then actively build on their own preferred
version of the commodity under examination, thereby producing something new
– the ‘work’ of consumption, or any other of the circuit processes doesn’t cease
beyond the moment of its instigation or enactment.

25



 4. Identity: once meaning is constructed, how is the product used to construct
individual/group identity. Often created through the assertion of sameness and
difference. Also reproduced through systems of representation. Often
incomplete (e.g. if you identify yourself as Singaporean, you are missing out
other identities such as male/female, Chinese).

• Who produces, consumes, and regulates it? Who would never be

involved with it? Why?
• Who cares about it? Who thinks it’s important? Why?
• What others think of people who do/use it? Why?
• What do you have to know, understand, and believe in order to do/use it?
What has to be “common sense” for you, in order to be the kind of
person who does/uses it?
• How does the object create insiders and outsiders—or, an “us” and
“them”? Who is “us”? Who is “them”? Who decides? How?
Processes of identification refers to the ways that the phenomenon itself comes
to mean and the related (i.e. articulated) positioning of participants - their
actions, looks, ideas and behaviours and the position, authority and/or
truthfulness these are understood to have. Particular forms of Identification in
direct relation with each of the other interlinked processes is crucial to the type
of work that particular texts encapsulate. The identification of particular
discourses and their conditions also play a corresponding role in the production
of meaning and identity.

5. Regulation: not just government (e.g. censorship). To do with the norms and
values of society. Influences how the products come to exist in society.

• Is it legal, or against the rules? What rules? Who makes and enforces
them? How/why?
• Is it 'obscene'? 'pornographic'? 'subversive'? Why, and according to
whom?
• What kind of certification, acceptance, and/or rubber-stamping do you
need before you can produce or consume it? Who does this certifying,
accepting, and/or rubber stamping?

26

A marketplace under production

is an important site in which to
understand the notion of
regulation and its broader political
and social effects. Markets do not
operate on their own but require
setting up and policing, requiring
other social and cultural
conditions of existence which they
themselves cannot provide. Hall
argues that markets themselves regulate and the shift is in fact between different
modes of regulation - those of the market and those of the state.

Case Study: Sony Walkman

The Sony Walkman was designed before it was marketed, and marketed before
it was consumed, for instance. But the Walkman was initially designed and
marketed with specific consumer groups and pat- terns of consumer behaviour
in mind, so consumption was an active process, even be- fore the first Walkman
was consumed. In the case of a product such as the Walkman, design and
marketing are ongoing practices which respond to, or articulate with,
consumption, leading to changes in design and new versions of the Walkman.

The Sony Walkman is analysed in terms of the meanings embedded at the level
of design and production, which are modified by the creation of new meanings
as the Walkman is represented in advertising. In turn, the meanings produced
through representation connect with, and help constitute, the meaningful
identities of Walkman users. Meanings embedded at the moments of production
and representation may or may not be taken up at the level of consumption,
where new meanings are again produced. Thus, meanings produced at the level
of production are available to be worked on at the level of consumption but do
not determine them. Further, representation and consumption shape the level of
production through, for example, design and marketing.

27

 Looking Glass-Self Concept

American Sociologist Charles Horton

Cooley’s concept of the looking glass self,
states that a person’s self grows out of a
person's social interactions with others. The
v i e w o f o u r s e l v e s c o m e s f ro m t h e
contemplation of personal qualities and
impressions of how others perceive us.
Actually, how we see ourselves does not
come from who we really are, but rather
from how we believe others see us.

The main point is that people shape their

self-concepts based on their understanding
of how others perceive them. We form our
self-image as the reflections of the response
and evaluations of others in our environment. As children we were treated in a
variety of ways. If parents, relatives and other important people look at a child as
smart, they will tend to raise him with certain types of expectations. As a
consequence, the child will eventually believe that he is a smart person. This is a
process that continues when we grow up. For instance, if you believe that your
closest friends look at you as some kind of superhero, you are likely to project
that self-image, regardless of whether this has anything to do with reality.

The concept of the looking glass-self theory constitutes the cornerstone of the
sociological theory of socialisation. The idea is that people in our close
environment serve as the “mirrors” that reflect images of ourselves. According
to Cooley, this process has three steps. First, we imagine how we  appear  to
another person. Sometimes this imagination is correct, but may also be wrong
since it is merely based on our  assumptions. Second, we imagine
what  judgments  people make of us based on our appearance. Lastly,
we imagine how the person feels about us, based on the judgments made of us.
The ultimate result is that we often change our behaviour based on how
we feel people perceive us.

“I imagine your mind, and especially what your mind thinks about my mind, and
what your mind thinks about what my mind thinks about your mind.” - Charles
Horton Cooley

28

 So how can we, or anyone else, know who we

really are? Can you be sure of the “real you”,
separated from all the stuff in the outside
social world? You have probably experienced Self-
concept
that you have had a strong sense of another What
others
person's dislike for you, only to later find out think?
How we
that this was not the case, and that this person appear?

really liked you. Actually, the “real social

world” as we perceive it, is often not only
wrong, but may even serve as an illusion.

All people want to be liked and be appreciated for talents or personality. But if
we have a weak self-image, if we believe that the opinion of others are more
important than our own, we can end up living our lives in accordance to other
peoples´ expectations. Sometimes, others evaluations mean more to us than our
own. This is quite a distressing thought, since it implies that others´ opinion of
you can run your life.

A person’s construction of an “imagined self-image” is done unintentionally. We

are not consciously aware that we often try to conform to the image that we
imagine other people expect from us. If a person develops a negative self-
image the self-esteem will tend to be low.  Low self esteem and poor self-image
has long been associated with a whole range of psychological problems, and it
is necessary to counter the passive individual that depends heavily on the social
world for building self-image. Hence, we should develop a self-image that is
more based on our own evaluations rather than how we believe others look at
us.

The concept of the looking glass self offers insight not only into our own
thinking, but also to how we form our identity based on how others see us. As
long as we are interacting with others we are vulnerable for changing our own
self-image, a process that will continue throughout our lives.

As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them
because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according as they do
or do not answer to what we should like them to be; so in imagination we
perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims,
deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it.

A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principle elements:

29

 1)  The imagination of our appearance to the other person

2)  The imagination of his judgment of that appearance

3)  Some sort of self-feeling such as pride or mortification.

The comparison with a looking glass hardly suggests the second element, the
imagined judgment, which is quite essential. The thing that moves us to pride or
shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed
sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another’s mind. For
example, we are ashamed to seem evasive in the presence of a straightforward
person, cowardly in the presence of a brave one, gross in the eyes of a refined
one, and so on. We always imagine and in imagining share the judgments of the
other man.

There is a silver lining, though, the theory tells us. Not all people’s assessments
have the same weight. Naturally, we would consider the opinions of family and
close relationships to be more relevant to our self-concept than those of
strangers.

Additionally, those we deem to have authority or credibility have greater

leverage. Further, what is assessed also matters — we tend to be more sensitive
to opinions that we deem significant to our self-concept.

The process follows three steps, according to the theory: 

first, we imagine how others see us, then, we imagine how they assess us, and
finally, we develop our self-views through these judgements. But we do hold
some power, of course, over how our personalities are shaped. 

And we do have a say in how we choose to define ourselves, and thus  —  how
much we let outside opinions leak substance into our self-image.

Selecting carefully the people we surround ourselves with and the dimensions
we base our confidence on can often make all the difference.

Finally, the main thing to take away from the theory of the looking-glass self is to
recognise that our self-esteem doesn’t form only as a result of self-knowledge,
or how much we generally like or dislike ourselves, but is also a by-product of
our social interactions.

30






 Perspectives on Culture

Matthew Arnold
For Arnold, the opposite of culture was “doing as one likes,” his term for
individuals who act out of self-interest, without regard for the greater good. He
did not see this as a choice so much as the consequence of an inability to
imagine a world beyond one’s limited, subjective perspective.

Arnold was representative of an era in which many artists questioned the

relevance of art to society, even as Victorian Britain underwent a radical social
transformation, leaving behind its agricultural past in the wake of the new
industrial economy. In the middle decades of the century, Britain was particularly
turbulent, famously unsettled by the inhumanity of early industrialism and the
demands of a vocal working-class for political representation. In one of the most
well known incidents, on 23 July 1866, a large crowd gathered at Hyde Park in
London to hear speakers on voting rights. They were confronted by police when
the government declared the meeting an illegal assembly. Soldiers were called
out when 200,000 people entered the park anyway, knocking down fences
meant to keep them out.

The incident precipitated Arnold’s thinking, and its violence represents the
“Anarchy” in  Culture and Anarchy. While staunchly opposing violence, he
nevertheless understood the need for social change. As one of his biographers
notes, Arnold’s job as a School’s Inspector exposed him “to more working-class
children than any other poet who has ever lived”. The injection of social change
into his new theory was the formula he sought to combine his own love of fine
art with social utility.

His ideas were predicated as a solution to the problem represented by the Hyde

Park Incident, which he believed demonstrated the need for greater social unity
to counter the danger of a divided society. He described Britain as suffering
from the conflicting interests of three different classes of people, and he gave
each a new name meant to describe its predominant trait.
• The land-owning aristocracy are “Barbarians,” referencing their medieval
origin as warriors in ironic contrast to their modern indulgence in a life of
privileged ease.
• The commercial and industrial middle class of manufacturers, artisans,
shopkeepers, and bankers are “Philistines,” a term that ever since has
described a combination of materialism with a disdain for art and the intellect.
• Poorly-paid labourers, agricultural tenants, scavengers, and the unemployed
are the “Populace.” This last was by far the largest of the three classes.

31

To Arnold, its discontent represented the greatest threat of all to British social
stability, and he used the  Hyde Park incident to illustrate this. But the central
problem was that all three groups viewed the world differently because the
perception of each was limited to its own self interest. Barbarians want higher
prices for the grain that grows on their land to increase their wealth. But the
Populace want lower prices for the loaf of bread made from that grain. And the
Philistine factory owners fear having to increase wages to workers who could no
longer afford a loaf of bread.

Arnold particularly attacked conventionality and mindless conformity, whether it

stemmed from religion or politics. Instead of thinking for themselves, people
accept everything they are told as if it were infallibly good, without considering
it further. The belief in Britain’s industrial might, for example, is too often seen as
proof of Britain’s greatness, and people stop asking whether or not this industrial
might has led to a better life for the British people as a whole. Such beliefs he
insisted are “machinery,” tools to accomplish a goal, but too often people
confuse the means with the end. “Faith in machinery is, I said, our besetting
danger; often in machinery most absurdly disproportioned to the end which this
machinery, if it is to do any good at all, is to serve; but always in machinery, as if
it has a value in and for itself”.

Free trade, for example, was thought to be a means to a better economic life,
but when it is treated as a sacred cow, people fail to ask the most basic
questions: since free trade has not led to a better life for those starving in
London’s East End, why should we continue to insist upon free trade as if it were
a magical solution to Britain’s problems? And without asking such questions, no
one would consider ways to modify free trade to gain the desired end of an
improved economic life. The idea of free trade was machinery, but machinery
that is fetishised when people think of it as intrinsically valuable, a goal unto
itself, rather than a means to an end.

Examples of machinery included an uncritical faith in the value of population

growth, or industrial production, or railroads, or the accumulation of wealth, or
even individual liberty. People idolised the concept of democracy, he claimed,
forgetting that it was a means to social justice, and what we care about is social
justice, not the idol of democracy itself.

Arnold saw in the idea of “the State,” and not in any one class of society, the
true organ and repository of the nation’s collective “best self.”

32

 Today, Arnold’s complex theory of culture is often reduced to the sound bite of
his famous phrase, “the best that is known and thought in the world,” as if
culture itself were contained in a set of specific books.

Johann Herder
Brian King says that to understand the herd, you need a Herder.

One question about human nature is whether it is the same for all people at all
times, or whether it is fundamentally different in different cultures or historical
periods. The argument that it is everywhere the same is implicit in the
evolutionary view, since we all share common ancestors; but it has a longer
pedigree than that. Plato’s account of the soul assumes that it applies to all men;
Hume believed that “mankind is so much the same in all times and places that
history informs us of nothing new or strange”; and the philosophers of the
Enlightenment tended to see human truths in universal terms because they felt
that the most significant aspect of human nature was rationality, which they
observed to be evenly distributed throughout the world.

However other thinkers, such as German philosopher Johann Gottfried von

Herder (1744-1803) thought that peoples from different historical periods and
cultures vary so much in their concepts and beliefs that human nature is radically
different in different cultures.

This idea originates from two basic observations. The first is that the need to
belong to a group is as basic a need in humans as the need for food. Herder
adapts Aristotle’s idea that man is a political animal, and takes it as a natural law
that man is by destiny a creature of the herd, of society. And that, for Herder, is
about it as regards any universal nature man has. The second basic view of
Herder’s is that man’s values and sense of himself are passed on culturally,
specifically by language.

Herder claims that the difference between humans and animals lies in the finality
of purpose in animals and the developmental nature of purpose in man. “The
bee was a bee as soon as it built its first cell,” he wrote, “but a person was not
human until he had achieved completeness. People continued to grow as long
as they lived… We are always in process, unsettled, unsatiated. The essence of
our life is never satisfaction, rather always progression, and we have never been
human until we have lived to the end.”

For Herder, each nation is separate, distinguished by climate, education,

custom, tradition, and heredity. He claims that Providence “wonderfully

33

 separated nationalities not only by woods and mountains, seas and deserts,
rivers and climates, but more particularly by languages, inclinations and
characters.” He emphasised the importance of national culture in the formation
of one’s identity and nature by saying, “he that has lost his patriotic spirit has
lost himself and the whole world about himself” whilst teaching that “in a certain
sense every human perfection is national.”

So for Herder, becoming someone involves a person growing and learning to

fully identify with his or her culture and values. That is a large part of a person’s
‘true’ nature. He attaches great importance to culture and also national identity,
as transmitted through language – that most basic and essential of all human
capacities.

The process of passing on values occurs in families at first. By teaching children

language, a family’s manner of thinking and set of values are developed and
preserved in them. Then values are passed on through larger units such as
schools, and eventually through societies or nations, the largest units that
identify with the language. Each community or nation has its own language,
unique tradition and history, which shapes the lives and values, the art and
ideas, the activities and leisure pursuits of its inhabitants – its culture – and
makes them the people they are – gives them their identity.
 
Neusprach (or Newspeak)
Many would see as dangerous the notion that language use and the attendant
culture determine one’s values and limit effective criticism of the culture, since
this appears to be a recipe for totalitarian success.

Many regimes throughout history have attempted to mould peoples’ values and
identities through their cultures, with various degrees of success – the medieval
Catholic Church and the communist regimes of the Twentieth Century are
arguably instances of this. Some might also argue that contemporary Western
society’s insistence on liberal individualism and its materialism is also a more
subtle version; after all, advertising is not just promoting a product but a way of
life and a set of values that attend that way of life.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell portrayed a totalitarian society that controlled

language itself. The Party promotes a specially invented, highly restricted
language called ‘Newspeak’, which was founded on the idea that if there are no
words for a concept it cannot be thought. Hence words like ‘freedom’ were
omitted from its vocabulary, to make the idea unthinkable, so that people were
less likely to make ‘unreasonable’ demands and rebel.

34

 The question presented here is how far our ability to think is dependent on the
extent of our vocabulary.

Are less well educated people easier to be made to conform?

Can regimes manipulate peoples’ values so thoroughly, or does

something more basic come through to undermine its attempts?

And, if so, where do these more basic values come from, if not from
culture and language?

Is there something in our human nature that’s more fundamental?

Universality

There are further counterpoints to Herder’s view to consider.

If cultures alone generate values and tastes, how can Western people
like, say, Chinese art, when they have not been brought up in that
tradition?

Similarly, why are certain cultural items, such as songs, sports, or films,
popular across a wide variety of cultures?

What does this imply about cultural values?

 
It could be argued that Herder is exaggerating the differences between cultures.
Two observations serve to show that there is a great deal of shared values
throughout the world. One is that we have international events, such as music
festivals or football tournaments, where common values or perhaps even
universal values are clearly shared; the other is that study of ancient civilisations
(for instance, the over 4,000-year-old Sumerian civilisation) reveal people having
very similar concerns and values as our own.

So, the intellectual who tries to see things from the perspective of universal
truths and is critical of their own society’s customs and traditions is less ‘real’
than someone who is brought up in the narrow conventions of his society and
just accepts and values what his family and society have told him to.

Max Weber

35

 Weber's discussion of the relationship between culture and economy set up an

important theoretical tradition of taking the cultural realm of values and ideology
seriously as a social force that interacts with and influences other aspects of
society like politics and the economy.

Weber's most well-known and widely read work is The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. This book is considered a landmark text generally because
of how Weber convincingly illustrates the important connections between
culture and economy. Positioned against  Marx's historical materialist
approach  to theorising the emergence and  development of capitalism, Weber
presented a theory in which the values of ascetic Protestantism fostered the
acquisitive nature of the capitalist economic system.

Weber theorised that there are three forms of authority that allow people and
institutions to attain legitimate rule over society:
1. traditional, or that rooted in the traditions and values of the past that follows
the logic of "this is the way things have always been”;

2. charismatic, or that premised on individual positive and admirable

characteristics like heroism, being relatable, and showing visionary leadership;
and

3. legal-rational, or that which is rooted in the laws of the state and represented
by those entrusted to protect them.

This theory of Weber reflects his focus on the political, social, and cultural
importance of the modern state as an apparatus that strongly influences what
happens in society and in our lives.
 
The Iron Cage of Bureaucracy:
Weber explained that modern bureaucracy was organised around rational
principles like hierarchical roles, compartmentalised knowledge and roles, a
perceived merit-based system of employment and advancement, and the legal-
rationality authority of the rule of law. As this system of rule -- common to
modern Western states -- is perceived as legitimate and thus unquestionable, it
exerts what Weber perceived to be an  extreme and unjust influence on other
aspects of society and individual lives: the iron cage limits freedom and
possibility.

36

 S.N. Balgangadhara
According to S. N. Balagangadharaa, a culture is how a particular social group,
as it goes about in the world, generates a process of learning as well as a
process of learning to learn.

• Religion generates the dominance of theoretical knowledge and creates a way

of going-about predominantly guided by knowing about.

• For Indian culture, ritual lends identity to its configuration of learning, this
culture imparts practical knowledge, and performative knowledge dominates
there.

Balagangadhara elaborates what it means to be ‘cultural’, showing how this

adjectival use allows us to individuate culture when considering how a person
uses the resources of his socialisation. The difference between individuals is a
cultural difference if it entails a specific way of using the resources of
socialisation. This allows distinguishing what is a cultural as opposed to a
psychological or social difference.

Stressing the need for an alternative understanding of the Western culture,

Balagangadhara argues that Hinduism, caste system, and secularism are not
colonial constructs but entities within the Western cultural experience.

• He believes that the so-called facts about India and her traditions are a result
of colonial consciousness. To answer the questions about Indian traditions, we
need to understand the Western culture.

• Not having received the explanatorily intelligible account of the Cosmos from
the Creator, whatever there exist in the east are not religions.

• He claims that Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, though it is said they are
religions, don't exist in India. They are products of Western academics and
missionaries who took the religious account of the Cosmos for universal truth:
as religion states that the whole universe is created by God, this implies that
religion is a cultural universal. Yet, this reasoning is part of the account that is
religion, and belongs exclusively to Abrahamic entities.

According to Balagangadhara, Religion is an entity that is not proper to Asia.

The Hindu, Buddhist and Jain way of going about in the world was not shaped
by an explanatorily intelligible account of the Cosmos or by a religious
configuration of learning, but by the description of the Cosmos as ritual.

37

Homi K. Bhabha
Homi K. Bhabha argues that hybridity results from various forms of colonisation,
which lead to cultural collisions and interchanges. In the attempt to assert
colonial power in order to create anglicised subjects, “[t]he trace of what is
disavowed is not repressed but repeated as something different—a mutation, a
hybrid”. This hybrid trace contradicts both the attempt to fix and control
indigenous cultures and the illusion of cultural isolation or purity.

In Nation and Narration (1990) he argues against the tendency to essentialise

the Third World Countries into a homogenous identity. Instead he claims that all
sense of nationhood is narrativised. He has also made a major contribution to
postcolonial studies by pointing out how there is always ambivalence at the site
of colonial dominance. He edited the first book Nation and Narration where he
strongly argues against the tendency to essentialise Third World Countries into a
homogenous identity.

He claims that all sense of Nationhood is narrativised. Here he challenges the

tendency to treat post-colonial countries as a homogeneous block. This leads,
he argues, to the assumption that there is and was a shared identity amongst ex-
colonial states. Then he goes on to identify a relationship of antagonism and
ambivalence between colonisers and the colonised.

In The Location of Culture (1994) Bhabha uses concepts such as mimicry,

interstice, hybridity and liminality to argue that cultural production is always
most productive where it is most ambivalent. Homi Bhabha generated the
concept: hybridity of cultures refers to mixedness or impurity of cultures knowing
that no culture is really pure.

According to Bhabha, every culture is an original mixedness within every form of

identity. He states that the cultures are not discrete phenomena, but being
always in contact with one another, we find mixedness in cultures. Bhabha insists
on hybridity‘s ongoing process-hybridisation. He further asserts that no cultures
that come together leading to hybrid forms but cultures are the consequence of
attempts to still the flux of cultural hybridities. He directs our attention to what
happens on the borderlines of cultures, and in-between cultures. He used the
term, liminal on the border or the threshold that stresses the idea that what is in
between settled cultural forms or identities is central to the creation of new
cultural meaning. So he asserts that the people living in different spaces are
living at different stages of progress.

38

 He states that the important

point to recognise is that
cultures are always
retrospective constructs
means they are
consequences of historical
process. So he adds further
that cultural hybridity is not
something absolutely
general and so hybridity
appears in all cultures. It
blurs all deference into
difference, making all
hybridity appear the same.

The discourse of colonialism,

argues Bhabha, has an inner
psychological tension that
ensures that the relationship
between the colonial and the
colonising subjects is always
ambivalent.

The depersonalised,
dislocated colonial subject thus becomes an “incalculable object” that is always
difficult to place. Thus the very nature of the colonial power undermines its own
authority and paradoxically can provide the means for native resistance.
Even the indoctrinated natives left behind by the colonial powers to continue
their work in the former colonies reveal the ambivalence of the colonial
discourse. In India, for example, the British left a whole class of brown
Englishmen.

Bhabha further asserts the tendency to universalise and historicise cultural

diversity transparent and elusive. In any case, different cultures are
“incommensurables” and cannot be categorised into universalist frameworks.

Bhabha states that we should see colonialism as straightforward oppression,

domination, violence only but also as a period of complex and varied cultural
contact and interaction. He believes that the coloniser‘s cultural meanings are
open to transformation by the colonised people. He states that there is an
element of negotiation of cultural meaning when coloniser and colonised come

39

 together. He further states that the identities of both can be structured when
both of them interact. According to him, the colonialism is marked by an
economy of identity in which coloniser and colonised depend on each other.
Bhabha accepts the importance of language in this process and so he has
developed a linguistic model of anti-colonial struggle agency.

Bhabha states that the domination of the colonised depends on the assertion of
difference: the colonised are inferior to the colonisers. Bhabha also believes that
the colonial authority knows that this supposed difference is undermined by the
real sameness of the colonised population. So he states that the tension
between the illusion of difference and the reality of the sameness leads to
anxiety. This anxiety opens gap in colonial discourse- a gap that can be
exploited by the colonised, the oppressed.

Bhabha remarks that everyone should know where one‘s identity ends and the
rest of the world begins, and it will help to define that world as other, different,
inferior and threatening to your identity and interest.

John Fiske, Popular Culture and Culture Industry

John Fiske has tried to provide the term ‘Popular Culture’ with an inflection
consistent with the socially critical approach of cultural studies. He defines
‘Popular’ as that which the audiences make of and do with the commodities of
the culture industries. These Culture Industries operate in a market which is
governed by commercial and ideological imperatives. For him, there can be no
instance of popular which involves domination. Therefore, according to Fiske,
‘popular’ is excluded from any domination and manipulation.
 
Fiske held that a cultural analysis of cultural texts and audience reception would
reveal the way the dominant ideology was structured in the text and into the
reading subject. It would also reveal the textual features which enable
negotiated, resisting or opposition readings. In addition, it would help to reach a
satisfactory conclusion by studying historically and socially located meanings.
This idea excluded analyses of how texts are manufactured within the context of
political economy and system of production of culture. It also leaves out how
audiences are formed by a variety of social institutions, practices, ideologies and
through use of different media.
 
Fiske claimed that a cultural studies analysis of Madonna needed to analyze her
marketing strategies, use of new media technologies, and skilful exploitation of
the themes in keeping within their socio-historical moment. All these would

40

 account for important dimension of the “Madonna Phenomenon”. Madonna

first emerged in the 80s and she embodied the materialistic and consumer-
oriented ethos of the 1980s. She appeared at the time of fashion fever, MTV,
intense marketing and promotion. Madonna’s popularity was mostly a function
of her marketing and promotion strategies, along with creative fabrication of
music videos and images which appealed to diverse audiences. The meanings
and effects of her artefacts can therefore be best understood within the context
of their production and reception. This involved discussing MTV, the music
industry, concerts, marketing and construction of images. We also need to study
the audiences as individuals and also as members of distinctive groups like
teenage girls. Along with that, we need to analyse how her work might
reproduce a consumer culture which gets identity in terms of images and
consumption.
 
The ‘popular’, is not just created by the audiences alone, as Fiske pointed out. It
is actually negotiated between audiences and cultural producers. This is with the
mediation of the culture industry, hype, public relations and media discourses.
The Popular is produced by advertising, public relation, critics and general
media. The audiences are told which movies to watch, which television shows to
see, which music to listen, etc. Therefore, the popular is actually a negotiated
interaction between the audiences and culture industries. Culture industries
relates to the process of industrialisation of mass-produced culture and
commercial imperatives. Commodities of creative industries exhibit the same
features as other products of mass production: commodification, standardisation
and ‘massification’. The products of culture industries had a specific function.
They provided ideological legitimacy to the capitalist societies and integrated
individuals into the framework of mass culture and society.

These culture industries pay people huge amounts of money to accurately

research what will sell in the market and then aggressively produce and market
such profitable products.

41

 UNIT II
CULTURE AND CONDITIONING:

Language:
When people come together, they talk. Not always, nor everywhere, but most of
the time that’s what they do. They talk in bed, on the phone, in the classroom, in
the judge's chambers, in the physician's office, in jury deliberations and
counselling sessions, on tea breaks and on airplanes, around the dinner table
and across the boardroom, in crisis and in comfort. Talk is the stuff, the very
sinew, of social interaction. Where the fine-grain and fine-tuned rhythm of turns
at talk spark, fan, and fuel interpersonal relations, business deals, labor
negotiations, trade embargoes, disarmament agreements, there too is the stuff
of history.
 
Language plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining what we call culture,
including conventions, habits and interpretive practices of individuals and
communities.
• Through language we create and share with others identities, categories,
attitudes, values and belief structures.
 
• Through language we create and share with others our ways of doing things
and ways of being in the world, our culture. Language is a tremendous tool for
the organisation of particular realities, including a wide variety of social
relationships and social systems.
 
• Through language we are continually socialised, we build or resist authority, we
worship, argue, and imagine. We name and give meaning to aspects of
experience from particular perspectives.
 
For example, members of different cultures can have quite different and local
notions of self and strategies of interpretation, including who are authorised
speakers and hearers. Language and culture are linked in the transmission of
knowledge, in the construction of social life, and ideologies about language use
and its relation to human behaviour.
 
For anyone acquiring a new language and approaching a different culture, one
of the first seemingly simple lessons to be learned are greetings. However, there
are complex skills required in properly using greetings, when to say them, to
whom to say them, and in what manner, since greetings do complex social
“work,” and they reflect and construct complex, multi-faceted relationships.
 

42

 To what extent does language influence how we think and how we perceive the
social and physical worlds? The famous but controversial  Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis, named after two linguistic anthropologists, Edward Sapir and
Benjamin Lee Whorf, argues that people cannot easily understand concepts and
objects unless their language contains words for these items. Language thus
influences how we understand the world around us. For example, people in a
country such as the United States that has many terms for different types of
kisses (e.g. buss, peck, smack, smooch, and soul) are better able to appreciate
these different types than people in a country such as Japan, which, only fairly
recently developed the word kissu for kiss.
 
Numerous features common to all natural human languages have been
proposed, nevertheless linguists seem not to be unanimous on ascribing certain
properties only to human beings. Yet, following are some of the key features of
languages:
 
Productivity (also: ‘creativity’ or ‘open-endedness’)
The potential number of utterances, as well as the number of words and
meanings in human languages is practically infinite. Humans can come up with
terms such as Myspace codes or property in Cyprus and the number of these
terms has no possible limits. In animal communication every signal has a  fixed
reference which means that it can only refer to one idea and its meaning cannot
be broadened. In addition, it seems that animals cannot invent new signals in
order to describe new ideas.
 
Arbitrariness
There is no natural connection between the word or sound and the thing it
denotes, which means we cannot tell what is the meaning of a word simply by
looking at it. Nothing in the Hindi word ‘kursi’ tells us that it means the same as
the English word ‘chair’. Although this rule applies to the most of human
language there are certain exceptions. In order to understand arbitrary words
one has to know a specific language, though there are a number
of  iconic  symbols in every language that can be understood without having to
know the entire language system. Onomatopoeias – words which imitate sounds
– are present in the majority of contemporary languages.
 
Displacement
This feature of languages refers to the ability to speak not only about what is
happening at the time and place of talking. But also about other situation, future
and past., real or unreal. We can talk about electronic parts catalogue while
playing cards and without ever seeing one.

43

  
As far as we know, the majority of animals cannot do that, nonetheless as the
research suggest the bee can direct other bees to a food source. This might
mean that the bees’ communication system also possesses this feature, although
in some limited fashion.
 
Cultural transmission
Although we are all born with certain fixed genetic predisposition for language
use (e.g. shape of vocal tract) it does not predetermine which language we are
actually going to use as our mother tongue. A Bangladeshi baby brought as a
toddler in Great Britain and raised by a British family is going to speak English
and not Bangla, though it will still look like Indic / South Asian. 

Language and the scope for writing system (script)

Language issues are at the heart of quality education for all. Many minority and
indigenous people groups do not have that opportunity – quite simply because
their language is not written down.

It is a situation which is changing, though only slowly. The population of Papua

New Guinea, for example, speaks around 800 different languages, and gradually
more and more of them are being used in education. That takes books and
libraries, adequate teaching, literature and a dynamic literate environment – all
in the local language. With the commitment of local communities all that is
beginning to develop but it starts with developing an adequate writing system.

Some languages are spoken only by those who are mother tongue speakers of
it, while others are widely spoken as additional languages (second, third ...
languages). Eleven languages each have 100 million mother tongue speakers or
more and they account for 51 percent of the world’s population: Mandarin
Chinese, English, Spanish, Arabic (all varieties), Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali,
Russian, Japanese, French and German. These are, of course, all written and all
have vast stores of literature.

How many of these are written? It is extremely difficult to estimate how many
written and unwritten languages there are in the world, and there is no
established source of information. The difficulty in counting comes in part from a
lack of information of what is happening on the ground. The world currently has
no systematic way to collect data on the number of communities which are
developing their languages, what stage they have reached, whether existing

44

writing systems are actually used, or whether attempts have been made to
develop writing systems that are not in use.

Africa, Asia and the Pacific are the regions where there are many small language
groups, although there is also a large number of small indigenous groups in
Latin America. Most of these small languages are not written. The same is true of
some larger groups in Africa and Asia, numbering in a few cases more than one
million speakers. While some groups may not wish to see their language in
written form, for many communities lack of a writing system is yet another factor
of marginalisation, often compounding others such as:

• small population numbers

• minority facing a majority
• ‘remote’ location (from a metropolitan perspective)
• economically poor
• low resource base
• politically without voice
• socially marginalised or stigmatised
• little access to quality social services, such as education and healthcare

Developing a writing system will not by itself change these realities, but may
interact with other factors to increase opportunities, for instance:

• a greater chance of literacy, and so education and opportunities for

economic development;
• increased access to the learning of additional languages;
• opportunity for cultural expression and wider communication of cultural
values and particularities;
• increased cultural and linguistic self-confidence and thus greater security
in one’s own identity;
• appreciation by others of the unique richness of the language;
• the option to use the language in the electronic media.

Developing a writing system for an unwritten language is perfectly feasible –

such work has gone on for centuries. Linguistic tools have improved and
speeded up the process, and there is today a greater understanding of the
45



 influence of the social context, and of the cultural impact of writing a language
down.

Can one study religion without considering ethnicity and culture?

One can only understand the nature of religion when one understands it's
connectedness to ethnicity and culture. The interrelatedness and interaction of
people from different cultures and races belonging to different religions are our
focus here. This endeavour becomes even more urgent when considering
current world events. Globalisation, post-colonialism and growing multi-cultural
societies (because of migration nationally or internationally because of
economic, social, political and health reasons) necessitate an understanding of
the relatedness of culture, ethnicity and religion.

The argument here is that studying religion requires more emphasis on a study
of culture and ethnicity. The goal is to suggest and argue the importance of
studying culture and ethnicity to understand religious diversity especially in
India. Understanding ethnicity can contribute to enhanced inter-religious
dialogue and provide possible guidelines as to inter-cultural reconciliation.

• Cultural migrations necessitate the studying of cultures;

• religion as cultural identity marker must be considered and
• the relocating of religion to culture needs to be taken into account.
In the interactions between religions, Ramadan (2010:5) suggests that the
principle of integration plays a dominant role. When cultures interact, there is no
place for isolation, withdrawal and 'obsession with identity’.

46

 Case: The legacy of Indic languages, writing systems and creed in

Indonesia

The idea that a “nation” requires a national language to act as a social glue
is hardly uncommon, but what makes Bahasa Indonesia noteworthy is that it
was neither the language of the majority of Indonesian citizens, nor of its
political elite. Those labels belonged to Javanese, a language spoken by the
majority of the inhabitants of Java, Indonesia’s most populous island and the
centre of gravity of its nationalist movement.

The Republic of Indonesia consequently made an unusual decision when it

bypassed its majority language, Javanese, in favour of a variety of Malay,
whose standardised form was dubbed Bahasa Indonesia or the language of
Indonesia. The many Javanese nationalists involved in the discussions at the
time not only acquiesced but actively advocated Bahasa Indonesia as the
logical choice for a national language.

Fig: The political map of Indonesia with the provinces listed

Malay’s role in Indonesian nationalism evolved in part due the absence of a

Dutch equivalent to the British Macaulay. Under the Dutch colonial
administration, “native” Indonesians were discouraged from learning Dutch,
in keeping with an imperialist strategy that sought to maintain a social
distance between the rulers and the populace. Unlike English in India, the
colonial language of Dutch was not of much use in enabling nationalist
consciousness in Indonesia. Malay, on the other hand, had long been used
by traders across the South East Asian region, as the language of
communication.

47

 Indonesian nationalists were keenly aware of the need to avoid conflating

nationalism with any single ethnicity or religion, given the complex plurality
that they were attempting to weave into a coherent unity. They chose
therefore to use language as the primary symbol of their nation building
efforts.

Another heritage which the Indonesians would never have had without
Sanskritisation is of course the Indian-based writing system and written
literature derived from, or inspired by, Sanskrit literary works. This script and
the literature are without doubt the most enduring elements of the adopted
Indian culture. Traces of the influence of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms that
dominated the region for hundreds of years, of Arab and Indian Muslim
traders, Portuguese and Dutch colonialists, can all be found in the Bahasa
(itself derived from the Sanskrit word  bhasha  or language) Indonesia
vocabulary. Its amalgamation of words, borrowed from Sanskrit, Javanese,
Persian, Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch and English, is synthesised with
a no-fuss grammar, and written in the Roman script.

Written literature, like Buddhism and Hinduism, entered the Malayo-

Indonesian archipelago through the main gates of the kraton (palaces).

Merchants may have introduced Indic scripts for the first time, perhaps
inadvertently, when they brought merchandise such as seals, rings and other
precious objects, engraved with Sanskrit names, into a trading port. Thus, for
48

instance, different types of Brahmi script (datable from the second to the fifth
century AD) engraved on such precious objects have been discovered at Oc
Eo, the site of an ancient trading port in southern Vietnam, while a type of
Brahmi or Kharoshthi script datable from the third century BC to the fourth
century AD inscribed on the body sherd of an open dish-like vessel was
recently found at Sembiran on the northern coast of Bali.

More systematic dissemination of literacy, however, must have been carried

out by the Hindu Brahmans and the Buddhist monks, for whom the study of
books was always a significant part of daily activities. We read in a Chinese
record, for instance, that in the third century kingdom of Tun-sun (in the
Malay peninsula) there were more than a thousand Brahmans. Those
Brahmans came to certain kingdoms by invitation of the kings, then for one
reason or another decided to stay and become guru. 

In the beginning, disciples must have been limited to a small number of

people, drawn mainly from what is termed as “some ambitious local group”
who aspired to become Brahmans, and probably also from other members of
the royal courts. This constituted the nucleus of the local learned men.
Proficiency in the Sanskrit language and literature must have been one of the
primary requirements for those aspiring to be allowed into those elite
groups. This is evident from the earliest inscriptions found in the archipelago
— from Kutai (around AD 400), western Java (fifth century) and central and
eastern Java (seventh and eighth centuries) —all of which are written in
Sanskrit, using Sanskrit metres, and are either religious or eulogistic in
nature. Comparing the Kutai inscriptions with those found in India, Vogel
says that the former indicate “a very fair knowledge of Sanskrit”, and that as
far as metrical exigencies are concerned they are “irreproachable”.

It was  among such small groups of learned men that literacy evolved, slowly
at first, but gradually gaining momentum and spreading to the wider circles
of society. The importance of writing as a medium of communication must
have soon been recognised by the rulers.

• Using writing, a king would be able to put his orders in a concrete, visible
form, transportable to a distance, so that he would always be symbolically
present among his subjects.

• While literacy by itself would not necessarily result in the increased political
power of the king and the expansion of the state, it would no doubt

49

 facilitate effective control of the whole realm. A local power, or even a

regional kingdom, may be able to do without it, but for an imperial
kingdom, literacy must be a crucial factor in maintaining its territorial
integrity.

As Gough argues, “It does seem improbable, that centralised states

containing more than about a million people can exist, or can hold together
easily, without some use of writing for political administration”. While the
number of one million may be somewhat arbitrary, there seems to be little
doubt that writing “provides a reliable method for transmitting information
between the centre and the periphery, and hence mitigates the fissive
tendencies of large empires”.

For a communication to be effective, the language of the message sent by a

speaker obviously has to be properly understood by those for whom the
message is intended. Writing as an instrument of communication would be
of no use if the language represented by these signs were incomprehensible
to readers. Hence the spread of literacy would inevitably bring the vernacular
languages of the texts into prominence.

50

Temples of language vs. temples of stone

Since there must have been some connection between the level of literacy and
the issuing of charters in the vernacular language, the abundance of the Old
Javanese inscriptions must be   an indication of the extent of literacy in ninth-
century Java. The thousands of bas-relief sculptures of Borobudur*, which are
based on various Buddhist texts, and those of Prambanan* based on a version of
the Rāma saga, are clear testimony of continued vigorous study of literary texts.

Fig: Prambanan temple, near Yogyakarta, Java

It is not surprising, therefore, that the oldest “temple of language” that has
come down to us, the Rāmāyaṇa kakawin, was also the product of the central
Javanese period. Surprisingly, this poem is based neither on the best-known
version of the Rāma sagas, namely Valmiki’s epic, nor on the version depicted in
the bas-reliefs of Prambanan temple, but on the Rāvaṇavadha, “The slaying of
Rāvaṇa”, a sixth or seventh century poem by an Indian poet named Bhaṭi. The
choice of Bhaṭi’s poem, rather than Valmiki’s epic, to serve as the poet’s model in
writing his poem, is remarkable. For the latter is not only the best-known version
of all the Rāma sagas, but its language is also much easier than that of the
former. Bhaṭi himself says of his work that this poem “can be understood only by
a commentary; it suffices that it is a feast for the clever and that the stupid come
to grief in it as a result of my love for learning”. Whatever reasons prompted the
choice, however, the completed result was without doubt  a masterpiece, the
gem of all that has been produced by the Old Javanese kawi, “poets”. To later
generations it became the ādikakawin, that is the first and foremost among the
Old Javanese poems. It is also testimony of the high level of scholarship that

51

 must have existed in central Java at that time. The poet’s ability to grapple with
a text which posed so many problems clearly shows that his knowledge   of
Sanskrit must have been considerable and that he must have had complete
mastery of his own language to have been able to render this difficult Sanskrit
prototype satisfactorily.
With the creation of both temples of stone and of language of the magnitude of
the Borobudur and the Old Javanese Rāmāyaṇa, it is no wonder that Java of the
ninth century continued to attract people from other countries.

Fig: Borobudur Buddhist temple in Muntilan, Java

The obvious advantage of the “temple of language” over “temple of stone” is

of course it's transportability. Once completed, a book, or more likely it's copies,
could be transported to the remotest part of the country. Even in those days it
was apparently not uncommon to purchase books and build up some kind of a
library in one’s   residence in the countryside. Prapañca** tells us in the
Nāgarakṛtāgama** that his friend, Kṛtayaṛa, who lived in a village some distance
from the capital, used to occupy himself “with the appraisal of kīrti (valuable)
books. Having been bought they were well taken care of, put into safe
keeping”.

• In fact, one does not have to transport literature in its physical form to convey
its message.

52

 • Once its contents have been mastered, one can leave the book aside and relay
its message orally to audiences anywhere.

________________________________________________________________________
Note:*Borobudur is a Mahayana Buddhist temple built during the Sailendra dynasty. Prambanan
is a Hindu temple built during the Sanjaya dynasty. Both these structures are located in Java
island.

**Nāgarakṛtāgama is an old Javanese literature describing the temples, palaces (kratons) and
rituals prevailing among other aspects. Mpu Prapanca ( पंच) was the author of Nāgarakṛtāgama.
In this manner, throughout the long history of Sanskritisation, literature became
the most potent instrument in the dissemination of the Sanskritic culture in
Indonesia. The Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa epics in particular played a
crucial role in spreading this culture from the confined walls of the kraton to the
countryside.

As Srinivas observes in the context of Sanskritisation in India, the epics “have

not only transmitted to the people a knowledge of the great gods  of Hinduism
and certain basic theological ideas, but have also helped to spread common
culture throughout the century. The epics, and the innumerable stories included
in them, constitute the foundation of the literature in almost every Indian
language. The fact that the institution of harikatha, or public reading of the epics
and the Pūraṇas by trained masters of the art, was a popular pastime made it
possible for Sanskritic Hinduism to reach even the illiterate masses.”

While they built both, creating “temples of languages” was a wiser decision of
the Javanese rulers than building “temples of stone”, and even more so than
erecting “temples of gold” like say Pharaonic Egypt.

Long after the fabulous wealth accumulated by the Srīwijayan* rulers had
vanished, both stone and language temples continued to function as refuges
where devotees came to seek protection and blessings from the Lord. And long
after all those hundreds of stone temples that covered the island of Java were in
ruins — destroyed by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or sheer neglect — and
then fell into disuse and were abandoned when Islam came, quite a number of
Old Javanese literary works continued to be in demand as a source of ethical
and spiritual guidance in the Muslim Javanese kraton and for the Javanese
population in general. Their Modern Javanese versions were, and are, even
more popular than those derived from Islamic sources. It is certainly instructive
to note that while Chandi Borobudur, undoubtedly the largest and the most
majestic of all the “temples of stone”, was buried under thick mud and tropical
growth by the early nineteenth century, Raffles was able to testify that at that
53

प्र

 time the Bhāratayuddha, one of the best known Old Javanese literary works, was
“the most popular and celebrated poem in the [Javanese] language”. It is still so
in Bali today, where people still “meditate” inside all those “temples of
language”.

To infer, the diffusion of Indic languages, socio-cultural practices, rituals,

architectural style of temples and viharas have all stayed its course. It is now
history but this legacy continues to remain relevant for Indonesia, the country
and for the Indonesian people.
________________________________________________________________________
Note: *Sriwijaya or Srivijaya ( जय) was an empire based in the island of Sumatra (later
stretching to parts of Java, western Malaysia/Peninsula and Cambodian coast).

GENDER
De Beauvoir’s distinction establishes an analytical difference between biological
sex (‘nature’) and gender (‘culture’), suggesting that while biological sex is
stable, there will always be different and competing (historically and socially
variable) ‘versions’ of femininity and masculinity.
 
Biology is itself always already culturally gendered as ‘male’ and ‘female’, and,
as such, already guarantees a particular version of the feminine and the
masculine. Therefore, the distinction between sex and gender is not a distinction
between nature and culture.
 
The variance between the concepts of Gender and Sex
The term sex refers to biological characteristics, namely chromosomes, internal
and external sex organs, and the hormonal activities within the body. Essentially,
when we use the term sex, what we are really commenting on is “male” vs.
“female”, scientifically speaking. The sex of an individual is based on genetics,
making it much more difficult to change.

Unlike “sex”, gender does not have a basis in science, although it is affected by
the biological and physiological characteristics we display as “males” and
“females”. Instead, gender is based on the societal constructions and belief
systems put in place that deal with masculinity and femininity. The gender
identity that most people adhere to is usually unconscious, or forced upon us at
an early age. We see the concepts of gender in the colours assigned to children
(blue for boys, pink for girls), the common length of our hair (men-short, women-

54

श्री
वि

 long), the toys we play with, the jobs we aspire to, and the behaviours and
interests we are “supposed” to embrace.

Throughout history, gender roles have been put in place based on social
constructs, and the strength of these traditions is shocking at times. Even today,
in the modern world, shifting gender roles and identity is met with great
opposition. Some countries still firmly adhere to ancient gender assignations,
such as women being subservient to men, unequal rights between the sexes,
and the illegality of those who wish to embrace alternative gender identities.

Gender Socialisation
As we grow, we learn how to behave from those around us. In this socialisation
process, children are introduced to certain roles that are typically linked to their
biological sex. The term gender role refers to society’s concept of how men and
women are expected to act and how they should behave. These roles are based
on norms, or standards, created by society. Masculine roles are usually
associated with strength, aggression, and dominance, while feminine roles are
usually associated with passivity, nurturing, and subordination. Role learning
starts with socialisation at birth. Even today, our society is quick to outfit male
infants in blue and girls in pink, even applying these colour-coded gender labels
while a baby is in the womb.

Preparations for gender socialisation begin even before the birth of the child.
One of the first questions people ask of expectant parents is the sex of the child.
This is the beginning of a social categorisation process that continues
throughout life. Preparations for the birth often take the infant’s sex into
consideration (e.g., painting the room blue if the child is a boy, pink for a girl).
Today it is largely believed that most differences in gender expression are
attributed to differences in socialisation, rather than genetic and biological
factors.
 
Gender stereotypes can be a result of gender socialisation. Girls and boys are
expected to act in certain ways, and these ways are socialised from birth by
many parents (and society). For example, girls are expected to be clean and
quiet, while boys are messy and loud. As children get older, gender stereotypes
become more apparent in styles of dress and choice of leisure activities. Boys
and girls who do not conform to gender stereotypes are usually ostracised by
same-age peers for being different. This can lead to negative effects, such as
lower self-esteem.

55

 Gender stereotypes form the basis of sexism. Sexism refers to prejudiced beliefs
that value one sex over another. Sexism varies in its level of severity. In parts of
the world where women are strongly undervalued, young girls may not be given
the same access to nutrition, health care, and education as boys. Further, they
will grow up believing that they deserve to be treated differently from boys.
When practised as discrimination, unequal treatment of women continues to
pervade social life. It should be noted that discrimination based on sex occurs at
both the micro- and macro-levels.
 
Gender socialisation occurs through four major agents of socialisation: family,
education, peer groups, and mass media. Each agent reinforces gender roles by
creating and maintaining normative expectations for gender-specific behaviour.
Exposure also occurs through secondary agents such as religion and the
workplace. Repeated exposure to these agents over time leads men and women
into a false sense that they are acting naturally rather than following a socially
constructed role.

Family is the first agent of socialisation. There is considerable evidence that

parents socialise sons and daughters differently. Generally speaking, girls are
given more latitude to step outside of their prescribed gender role. However,
differential socialisation typically results in greater privileges afforded to boys.
For instance, sons are allowed more autonomy and independence at an earlier
age than daughters. They may be given fewer restrictions on appropriate
clothing, dating habits, or curfew. Sons are also often free from performing
domestic duties such as cleaning or cooking and other household tasks that are
considered feminine. Daughters are limited by their expectation to be passive,
nurturing, and generally obedient, and to assume many of the domestic
responsibilities.

The reinforcement of gender roles and stereotypes continues once a child

reaches school age. Until very recently, schools were rather explicit in their
efforts to stratify boys and girls. The first step toward stratification was
segregation.

Mimicking the actions of significant others is the first step in the development of
a separate sense of self. Like adults, children become agents who actively
facilitate and apply normative gender expectations to those around them. When
children do not conform to the appropriate gender role, they may face negative
sanctions such as being criticised or marginalised by their peers.

56

 Mass media serves as another significant agent of gender socialisation. In

television and movies, women tend to have less significant roles and are often
portrayed as wives or mothers. Television commercials and other forms of
advertising also reinforce inequality and gender-based stereotypes. Women are
almost exclusively present in ads promoting cooking, cleaning, or child care–
related products. Think about the last time you saw a man star in a dishwasher or
laundry detergent commercial.

Gender socialisation is frequently viewed as a binary, or a concept that is

exclusively comprised of two parts. In other words, individuals are socialised into
conceiving of their gender as either masculine (male) or feminine (female).
However, some individuals do not fall into the gender binary.
 
For example, individuals that identify as transgender have a gender identity that
does not match their assigned sex. For example, they may have been assigned
male at birth because they have a penis, and a gender identity that is feminine.
 
Individuals that identify as gender queer have a gender identity that challenges
classifications of masculine and feminine, and may identify as somewhere other
than male and female, in between male and female, a combination of male and
female, or a third (or forth, or fifth, etc.) gender altogether. These identities
demonstrate the fluidity of gender, which is so frequently thought to be
biological and immutable. Gender fluidity also shows how gender norms are
learned and either accepted or rejected by the socialised individual.

CLASS

Class is the strongest determinant of participation in culture and in turn, culture

is a crucial marker of social difference. So does culture increase social mobility or
reinforce class division?

Culture and class are intimately bound together, and both are highly politicised.
 
The words culture and class are difficult, each of them caught in a tangle of
contemporary confusion and carrying a great deal of historical baggage. But the
relationship between them is always on the move, and so needs regular re-
examination.
 
Cultural inclusion creates non-financial bonds and transactions between people,
and these are just as significant as monetary exchange to the way that a society
functions. Being part of a culture strengthens social ties and builds human

57

 capital. It generates social capital – despite the fact that individual cultural acts
or movements can have socially destructive consequences.

Some things have changed. Class divisions are no longer between fairly
homogenous groups of upper, middle and working class. Instead, there are
financial divisions between the super-rich, who have incomes and assets beyond
the dreams of most of the population; the prosperous middle class; the aspirant
middle class; the working class; and the non-working poor, sometimes referred
to as ‘the underclass’.
 
The middle classes are becoming increasingly resentful of the super-rich, partly
because boardroom rewards are now disconnected from performance and are
therefore seen as greedy and undeserved, and partly because, as the super-rich
soar ahead, they damage the prospects of middle-class children being able to
achieve the material standards of their parents. The consequences of a divided
society are clear.

The case of Caste in the Indian subcontinent

People in general belong to many social categories that could either be
achieved, such as one’s profession, or inherited, such as one’s gender. The
consequences of social categorisations are often not only seen in the dynamics

of social interactions, but also in the way social status is represented.

 
Considering the sub-continental perspective, the Indian/Hindu caste system is of
interest, which is an integral feature of the Indian societal structure. The caste
system provides a hierarchy of social roles that hold inherent characteristics and,
more importantly, remain stable throughout life.
58

  
The division of castes constitutes one of the most fundamental features of India’s
social structure. Caste divisions play a part in both actual social interactions and
in the ideal scheme of values. Members of different castes are expected to
behave differently and to have different values and ideals. The concept
rationalises the caste system based on birth.
 
It is unfortunate that although the original intent of Varnas was not to create
caste, it has evolved into emphasising the idea of the caste system. Caste- by-
birth was never the original intent nor was it ever the basis upon which the
Varnas were constituted; it was meant to have individuals engaging only in a
field of activity that they are capable of doing
 
There were many movements and governmental actions that took place pre-
and post- independence in order to overcome and attempt to eliminate the
inequalities and injustices associated with the caste system.
 
Both Ambedkar and Gandhi were advocates for the abolishment of the caste
system, but they disagreed on the means to go about it. Gandhi believed
“untouchability to be a moral issue that could be abolished through goodwill
and change of heart among the upper-caste Hindus”. Ambedkar, however,
believed that “the subordination of Dalits was primarily economic and political,
and could only be overcome by changing the social structure through legal,
political, and educational means”.
 
Social identity claims that people derive an important part of their identity from
an affirmation of membership with the group they belong to. It is suggested that
any group (e.g., social class, family, football team etc.) can act as a source of
pride and self-esteem, therefore, we tend to enhance our self-esteem by
promoting and endorsing the  status  of the group we belong to, the so-called
“in-group” (as opposed to “out-groups” being those groups that we
do  not  belong to. The Indian societal structure provides a fertile ground to
examine the interactive roles of multiple identities like religious, national,
regional (north vs. south), class and caste wherein one could discard or fuse
these identities for the benefit of societal functioning.
 
But many researchers have stressed the importance and the influence of caste as
an integral social identity among many South Asians compared to other social
identities like gender and ethnicity. It has in fact been argued that caste identity
may override other social identities, because of its primary importance for many
South Asians. We argue that in the context of status representation, caste

59

 identity (as opposed to religion, national and regional identities) would be the
most prominent identity in explaining the differences in status perception, due
to the inherent associations of caste and status. Thus, according to social
identity theory, individuals would strive to maintain a positive image of their
caste identity.
 
In our context it particularly refers to moral motives for unity and hierarchy. Unity
is aimed at caring for and supporting the integrity of in-group by avoiding or
eliminating threats of contamination. Hierarchy in turn is aimed at maintaining
linear orderings of social status where subordinates are motivated to respect and
obey, and superiors to guide, protect, but also take moral responsibility for the
actions of their subordinates.
 
A strong caste identity could provide feelings of belongingness or self-esteem,
thereby relying on some caste norms. Particularly, it is known that high caste
individuals see caste identity as a more stable construct wherein this identity is
inherited at birth. They tend to essentialise their identity and this is
predominantly attributed to the feelings of connectedness with previous
generations of one’s caste group. High caste individuals also develop feelings of
temporal continuity, positive distinctiveness, and heightened self-esteem from
essentialisation of their caste identity.

RACE

The concept of ‘race’ originated in relation to assumed differences on biological

grounds, with members of a particular racial group sharing certain distinguishing
physical characteristics such as bone structure and skin colour. In the light of
advancing knowledge about biological variations through population and
genetic studies and the improving genetic knowledge base, the term ‘race’
remains highly contentious.
 
In the past, theorists have posited categories of race based on various
geographic regions, ethnicities, skin colours, and more. Their labels for racial
groups have connoted regions (Mongolia and the Caucus Mountains, for
instance) or denoted skin tones (black, white, yellow, and red, for example).
However, this typology of race developed during early racial science has fallen
into disuse, and the  social construction of race is a far more common way of
understanding racial categories.
 

60

 Race is now widely acknowledged as a social and political construct, which

cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among
people. Human biology does not divide people into different ‘races’; it is racism
(and sometimes its counter-arguments) that insists on this division. In other
words, ‘race’ is a cultural and historical category, a way of making difference
signify between people of a variety of skin tones. What is important is not
difference as such, but how it is made to signify; how it is made meaningful in
terms of a social and political hierarchy. This is not to deny that human beings
come in different colours and with different physical features, but it is to insist
that these differences do not issue meanings; they have to be made to mean.
 
In the case of the major racial groups, classification is relatively simple though
there are doubtful cases. There are peoples who indisputably belong to one of
the three branches; no one could cavil at the statement that an Englishman
belongs to the white race, a Baoule to the black or a Chinese to the yellow. It is
when we attempt to make sub-divisions within the three main divisions that we
begin to see how equivocal is the commonly held idea of race.
 
Bodily attitudes and motions and expressions of the face all come under the
heading of behaviour; and being habits determined by the subject's social
background, are cultural, not «natural». Moreover though loosely describable as
<traits>, they typify not a whole nation, but a particular social group within it
and thus cannot be included among the distinctive marks of race. Accordingly,
any confusion between «race» and «nation» must be avoided and there are
sound reasons against the misuse of the terms, even in speech.
 
The term race not only carries a burden of historical and prejudicial connotations
but also is insufficiently precise to be usefully deployed in scientific and
practitioner discussions of genetic factors influencing the prevalence of certain
diseases within different populations.
 
It is important to understand that ‘race’ and racism are not natural or inevitable
phenomena; they have a history and are the result of human actions and
interactions. But often they are made to appear as inevitable, something
grounded in nature rather than what they really are, products of human culture.

Case: The African-American experience

61

 CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURE

Political

- Polity and government set standards for formal controls in society.

- Political socialisation is the process of shaping one’s ideas and attitude
about the government.
- Political values and differences persist in a society over a period of time
to develop distinctive thought processes.
- Each nation has its own political noms that influence how people think
about politics.
- Also, the way political institutions function, ins one way, reflect public
attitudes, norms and expectations and their role within a given political
system.

- Government and the current political party in power decide matters that
need awareness and set expectations for members of society.
- They give legitimacy to social norms and folkways making them
mandatory to obey and follow.
- Any disagreement, resistance to change or deviation to these can lead to
serious consequences and penalty.
- Adolescence is a crucial time here because it is a time of great change in
the minds of the youth - and this is the time where a stable political view
develops that may never change.
- A nation’s political culture includes its citizens’ orientations at three levels:
o The political system - involves how people view the values and
organisations that comprise the political system
o The policymaking process - expectations of how politics should
function and individuals’ relationship to the political process.
o Policy outputs and outcomes - deals with the public policy
expectations for the government.
62

 - Mass media works towards the dissemination of information with regards

to the above.
- Thus, political construction of culture mainly deals with fundamental
values, outlooks and knowledge that give form and substance to politics
in a given country or society.
- This can also be referred to as civic culture.
- Socialisation and construction occur when individuals in a society form
attitudes and thus collectively affect political culture.
- Political construction of culture can begin at childhood and continue
throughout life with influences from family, teachers, peers, work
associates and the mas media.
- With the demonetisation drive being announced in India, overnight even
the poor farmers who had no idea about such technology are now
working towards awareness and easier facilitation through such means
and use of modern technology that have been made mandatory by the
government.
- Political construction also takes place through shaping of opinions by the
government on matters like terrorism, western influences, certain
religious faiths, regionalism etc.
- It is not a static phenomenon and it influences how citizens act, how the
political process functions and what policy goals the government
pursues.

Social

Social construction refers to the way in which our perceptions of the world are
determined or influenced by the social environment around us. This process
brings about a change in the individual identities of people and the ways in
which they deal with social situations. In other words, most children adapt the
ways of their parents - be it religion, thought processes, eating habits,
understanding of social relationships, decision making, customs, skills, clothing
habits, attitudes, traits, etc.

- The family however remains the most pervasive agent of social

construction.
- The individual also learns and accepts readily the norms, folkways, mores
and other sanctions as laid down by the society.
- Peers, neighbours, educational institution, workplace, mass media etc are
also a critical part of social construction of culture.
- The culture of our society shapes our views on a very wide range of
topics

63

 - Social construction frameworks help to analyse this scenario better.

- A social construction approach stresses the way in which cultures are
created through symbols.
- The media plays an important role in inculcating values and beliefs in the
process.
- A social construction approach holds that there is no reality of a culture
outside of those who communicate about that culture.
- A culture exists by virtue of it being produced and reproduced in the
moments of communication regardless of a person’s awareness of this
production process.
- Mass media impacts and influences thoughts and opinions on cultural
similarities or differences that are created through how people
communicate about a culture.

Economic

- We are all aware of the economic changes taking place at a rapid pace,
every single day, in our country and beyond.
- Economic construction of culture and socialisation occurs with the
sources and amount of economic information available in a society.
- It deals with economic beliefs and behaviours of people, especially the
youth - how they deal and interpret the economy
- It involves understanding the social determinants of economic attitudes,
beliefs and values and understand he economics behind social factors.
- Within India, we can notice the immense transformation on this front with
huge malls, supermarkets and e-commerce outlets that all possible age
groups have access to.
- Marketing and advertising through mass media, shopping and buying
habits are also considered a new source of information and update.
- Economic construction of culture tries to comprehend the perspective of
consumers and the association between economic beliefs and social
class.
- Economic socialisation has been seen as a major contribution to
economic psychology which brings together research and analysis,
developing our understanding of the ways in which we learn about and
engage in all the economy.
- The youth and adolescent have more options and make more aware
career choices keeping salaries, perks, facilities and convenience in mind.
- In current times of rapid globalisation, we see increase exposure to
brands and products setting global standards.

64

 - Cultures will automatically differ on the incidence and acceptability of

‘economic personalities’ that emerge. It also helps mass media better
understand consumer behaviours, increasing marketing and advertising
effectiveness.

Religion

- Religion plays a major role in socialisation and construction of culture and

its artefacts.
- Religious expressions have transformed cultures and have been
transformed by them.
- The nature of religion is certainly very complex. It affects how we see the
world around us.
- It can affect the same culture in different ways at different times.
- Culture accepts behaviours and ways of thinking that are acceptable to
religion. For example, Muslims following the tenets of Islam in everyday
life.
- Religious ideas influence moral and spiritual ideas in a society.

- They also shape the way people dress, speak and behave.
- Exposure to religious authorities, temples, pilgrimages etc. is a part of
religious socialisation.
- Symbols differs from culture to culture and play a key role in religious
discourse. Symbols are important because they connect to the myths and
rituals individuals believe in. Symbols hold the meaning to one’s belief.

65

 - It is important to note that not all symbols have the same significance
between religions.
- Emile Durkheim viewed religion purely from a social context. He pointed
out that the idea that religion is a creation of societies. However, there
have been different perspectives in this regard at different times.
- The individual and the society become interlocked by shared religious
belief or what we also call ‘collective’ thought.
- Construction of culture through religion is a key component of popular
culture.
- Religion tends to explain and justify specific cultural values and social
rules. For instance, the idea of caste system based on certain ancient
Hindu scriptures (smritis).
- Children tend to develop same religious ideas and beliefs as their parents
or elders in the family. They become integral to an individual so much so
that s/he tends to believe these without questioning them in most cases.
- It also affects our overall outlook towards issues like gender and race.
- One of the major functions of religion remains teaching or instructing on
the different ways of life and our attitude towards people and society.
- One must take lot of care while interpreting these and do so in the right
context.
- Beliefs, rituals, myths and religious experience are important components
of religion. They are usually interrelated and mutually supportive and
together they impact the cultural construction in a society.

UNIT III

THE MARXIST TRADITION IN CULTURAL ANALYSIS

 
Cultural studies is not a Marxist domain, but has drawn succour from it while
subjecting it to vigorous critique. There is little doubt that we live in social
formations organised along capitalist lines that manifest deep class divisions in
work, wages, housing, education and health. Further, cultural practices are
commodified by large corporate culture industries. In that context cultural
studies has been partisan in taking up the cause of change.
 
- The Marxist approach to culture insists that texts and practices must be
analysed in relation to their historical conditions of production (and in
some versions, the changing conditions of their consumption and
reception).

66

 - What makes the Marxist methodology different from other ‘historical’

approaches to culture is the Marxist conception of history. Marx outlines
the now famous ‘base/superstructure’ account of social and historical
development.
 
The ‘base’ consists of a combination of the ‘forces of production’ and the
‘relations of production’. The 'superstructure’ (which develops in conjunction
with a specific mode of production) consists of institutions (political, legal,
educational, cultural, etc.), and ‘definite forms of social consciousness’ (political,
religious, ethical, philosophical, aesthetic, cultural, etc.) generated by these
institutions.

In other words, Marx defines the base as the social relations between men which
create and produce materials that are eventually put up for exchange. From the
base comes a superstructure in which laws, politics, religion and literature
legitimise the power of the social classes that are formed in the base.
 
So, for Marx, art and literature are a superstructure of society. Marx notes that
there is an “unequal relationship” between art and society. Meaning that a more
developed, productive society does not have a high level of artistic
achievement. He references the Greeks as a society where the epic was created,
yet economic development was lacking.

Marx argues that each significant period in history is constructed around a

particular ‘mode of production’: that is, the way in which a society is organised
(i.e. slave, feudal, capitalist) to produce the material necessaries of life – food,
shelter, etc. In general terms, each mode of production produces:
(i) specific ways of obtaining the necessaries of life;
(ii) specific social relationships between workers and those who control the
mode of production, and
(iii) specific social institutions (including cultural ones). At the heart of this
analysis is the claim that how a society produces its means of existence (its
particular ‘mode of production’) ultimately determines the political, social and
cultural shape of that society and its possible future development.
 
The relationship between base and superstructure is twofold. On the one hand,
the superstructure both legitimates and challenges the base. On the other, the
base is said to ‘condition’ or ‘determine’ the limits of the content and form of
the superstructure As Marx explains, ‘The mode of production of material life
conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general’. This claim
is based on certain assumptions about the relationship between ‘base’ and

67

 ‘superstructure’. It is on this relationship – between ‘base’ and ‘superstructure’ –

that the Marxist account of culture rests.
 
In its engagement with Marxism, cultural studies has been particularly concerned
with issues of structure and action. On the one hand, Marxism suggests that
there are regularities or structures to human existence that lie outside of any
given individual. On the other hand, it has a commitment to change through
human agency.
 
Cultural studies has resisted the economic determinism inherent in some
readings of Marxism and has asserted the specificity of culture. Cultural studies
has also been concerned with the apparent success of capitalism – that is, not
merely its survival but its transformation and expansion. This has been attributed
in part to the winning of consent for capitalism on the level of culture.
 
Culture is today one of the primary interests of Marxist thought, which takes to
cultural analysis rather often. Karl Marx himself gave little attention to the
concept and working of culture in his own writings. This as a result of Marx's
focus on economical and political factors, granting culture only a secondary
position. Marx positioned culture in the superstructure, which for him was
derived for the economical base of material practice. The role of the
superstructure, according the Marx, is to mask and justify the inequalities and
exploitation which take place in the material base.  Culture for Marx is therefore
something which abstracts the truth and creates "false consciousness" and an
incorrect perception of social, political and economic reality endorsed by the
ruling class.
  
Within cultural studies Marxism is seen as a predicament, though not in isolation
but historically grounded within socio-political formations. The issues that
Marxism deals with: power, class struggles, capital and value bring together
critical evaluation and reflection on the discourses of culture than utilisation of
politics and ideology. Thus attempting to “connect together in a critical
reflection different domains of life, politics and theory, theory and practice”.
Marxist cultural studies intended to determine the human subject who
experiences the operations of the economy and ideology as a point of
investigation beyond the minimal appropriation of Marxism. Cultural studies
emphasises that culture must be examined within the social associations and
system through which culture is produced and commodified. Consequently it
allows the investigation of culture to be closely bound with the study of society,
politics and economics.
 

68

 THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL

 
The Frankfurt School is the name given to a group of German intellectuals
associated with the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt.
The Institute was established in 1923. Following the coming to power of Adolf
Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933, it moved to New York, attaching itself to the
University of Columbia. In 1949 it moved back to Germany. ‘Critical Theory’ is
the name given to the Institute’s critical mix of Marxism and psychoanalysis. The
Institute’s work on popular culture is mostly associated with the writings of
Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert
Marcuse.
 
The Marxist approach to the media studies developed in parallel with the
functionalist approach. It is best characterised by the work of
the  Frankfurt  School  which was concerned with developing a revolutionary,
philosophical variant of Western Marxism, opposed to capitalism in the west and
Stalinism in the East, which came to be called critical theory.
 
In 1930s when Hitler came to power, the Institute was forced to
leave Germany for New York. In 1953 it was re-established in Frankfurt. Adorno
and Horkheimer developed a Marxist sociological approach to media studies.
They saw the media as a cultural industry that maintained power relations and
served to lessen the ‘resistance standards’ of cultural aesthetics by popularising
certain types of culture.
 
The products of the culture industry, they claim, are marked by two features:
1. homogeneity, ‘film, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform
as a whole and in every part … all mass culture is identical’; and
2. predictability:
 
As soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be
rewarded, punished, or forgotten. In light music [popular music], once the
trained ear has heard the first notes of the hit song, it can guess what is coming
and feel flattered when it does come. The result is a constant reproduction of
the same thing.
 
Exceptions persist though.

Marx's successors in the 20th century had a hard time maintaining his perception
of culture as secondary to the material dimension. Neo-Marxist thinking
throughout the 20th  century began to focus more and more on culture and its

69

 workings, giving birth to the discipline known as cultural studies. One field of
cultural research within the Marxist tradition is that of asking how, and if, art and
culture can subvert the workings of capitalism or how to cater for its greedy
needs.
 
The Frankfurt School for social thought is famous for the notion of cultural
industry is an example of such research of culture within the Marxist tradition.
Such a view of culture could stress its repressive function, such as in popular and
mass culture. Another way Marxist thinkers can analyse culture is by asking how
the interchange of power if facilitated by it, and the battle between different
interests drawn through it.
 
They produced some of the first accounts within critical social theory of the
importance of mass culture and communication in social reproduction and
domination. They generated one of the first modes of a critical cultural studies
that analyses the processes of cultural production and political economy, the
politics of cultural texts, and audience reception and use of cultural artefacts.
Frankfurt school developed a critical and trans-disciplinary approach to cultural
studies  and communications studies, combining political economy, textual
analysis, and analysis of social and ideological effects.
 
THE BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES
 
Founded in 1964, as a postgraduate research centre at the University of
Birmingham, UK, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies has had a pivotal
role in the development of cultural studies in the United Kingdom. (A significant
number of the leading figures in British cultural studies have passed through the
Centre at some stage in their careers.) Initially under the directorship of Richard
Hoggart and Stuart Hall from 1968 to 1979, the Centre developed much that is
now typical of the subject matter of cultural studies and the techniques of
analysis.
During its formative phase, British
cultural studies was deeply
influenced by the New Left.
Indeed, the for mation and
development of the New Left is
seen by many historians as a
precursor to cultural studies. The
New Left emerged as a British
response to the Russian invasion
of Hungary in 1956.

70

 Under Hall, research topics developed from an initial interest in the ‘lived’
culture of different classes, to the centrality of the mass media, and associated
areas of youth and subcultures, education, and race and gender. For Hall,
cultural studies was never a discipline in itself, but a field of enquiry, a
mechanism to understand the broader structures that shaped our everyday lives.
His most famous works while at Birmingham included analyses of how meanings
are transmitted and received in the media (‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’) as well as
how identities based on age, class, race and gender intersected with dominant
ways of seeing.

The Centre was interdisciplinary from its inception, drawing most notably on
sociology and literary criticism, but also importantly on history (for example
through the influence of E.P. Thompson (1963)). The Centre’s theoretical
development may be seen in part as a response to American approaches to the
study of mass media. Drawing on the intellectual resources of contemporary
Europe, including both Althusser‘s and Barthes’s structuralism, the Centre
approached the media as ideological and hegemonic institutions.
Popular culture is therefore understood as the site of the resistance and
negotiation of marginal and disempowered groups within society. The Centre’s
work may also be characterised by the collaborative nature of its research. The
Centre’s series of working papers became a key medium of publication, both for
its staff and its postgraduate students.

During the Thatcher period, when privatisation and free market policies became
the norm, subcultures and subgroups of women and minorities became the
focus of cultural analysis seeking to expose the impact of “liberalisation” on the
marginalised elements of society. As before, the emphasis was on “reading”
signs of resistance and opposition to the dominant culture.

British cultural studies has two distinguishing features.

First: it is distinguished by the remarkable diversity and originality of the

topics that have been studied. Apart from the studies of youth
subcultures and television news programmes.

British cultural studies has focused on images of women, masculinity and

the history of sexuality.

Second:  British cultural studies has always had a political dimension. It

has sought to emphasise the value of politically engaged intellectual

71

 work. It has aimed at empowering people by encouraging them with the

resources to understand the intrinsic relationship between culture and
the various forms of power, and thus to develop strategies for survival.

Under the directorship of Richard Johnson and then Jorge Lorrain, some shift in
the focus of the Centre’s research away from textual analysis of the media and
towards the history of everyday life has been identified by some commentators.
In 1988, the Centre became the Department of Cultural Studies, offering
undergraduate courses in addition to postgraduate research. The University of
Birmingham closed the Centre in 2002.

Criticism of British Cultural Studies:

British cultural studies has been strongly criticised for its parochialism and
“Anglo-centrism”, its over-emphasis on class at the expense of race and gender,
and its over concern with and romantic treatment of urban style and subcultural
rituals.

“Culture” in British cultural studies has often been represented as “the culture".
 
Eurocentrism: The notion of “art” in British cultural studies is also seen as
particularly Eurocentric. Only Western culture views the arts as a source of
meaning through which life is recreated in all its dimensions. The idea that every
self-conscious individual life aspires to the condition of art is not endorsed by
non-Western cultures.
 

72

 Despite its declared aim to be the champion of the marginalised and

disempowered, cultural studies maintained a continuing relationship with the
supremacist Western “culture and civilisation” tradition of the colonial and post-
colonial period.
 
Marxism in disguise:
British cultural studies has
also been accused of
being Marxism in disguise
– “a ‘cover’ for a revised
and qualified Marxism”.
This criticism is justified in
the sense that Marxism
has influenced cultural
studies in two specific
ways. First, the assumption
of cultural studies that
industrial capitalist
societies are unequally
divided along class,
gender and ethnic lines is
drawn from Marxism. But
cultural studies goes
further in contending that
culture is the main arena
where this division is
established and fought for,
where subordinate and marginalised groups resist the imposition of meanings
which reflect the interests of the dominant groups.
 
Second, cultural studies has accepted and accommodated, some critics claim,
the Marxist materialist notion of history. Certainly, cultural studies attempts to
analyse social structures in terms of how cultural forces have given them an
historic form. The reason culture is important is that it shapes history as well as
social structures. Hence, cultural studies does not treat history and culture as
separate entities.

Raymond Williams on Technological determinism

Raymond Williams was a noted critic of technological determinism. For him,
technological determinism failed to assess the significance of social power

73

 relations, interaction, and social circumstances. The interaction between

technology and culture is often thought of in two ways:

1. technological determinism—a new technology comes along and defines

everything in culture that comes after
2. symptomatic technology—new technology arrives as a symptom of some
cultural need already in place

Both viewpoints assume that the research and development of technology are
self generating (which is not true). Looking at the histories of telegraphy,
photography, and moving pictures, (precursors and components of television)
we realize that “all were foreseen—not in utopian but in technical ways—before
the crucial components of the developed systems had been discovered and
refined” .

In other words, all of the components of these technologies existed, and had
been invented for specific societal needs, before they combined to form the
larger technological intervention with which we now associate them.

In his critique of technological determinism, he focused on deconstructing many

of McLuhan’s arguments regarding the nature of technology as a sensory
extension of humans. Raymond Williams offers four key points that help inform
his ideas on shaping:

▪ Technologies are social – Williams explains that there is a certain social

process through which a technical invention becomes an available technology.
There are certain decisions made about which inventions to develop, invest in
and manufacture. In other words, there are social motivations that influence the
transformation of an innovation into a technology. To help explain this argument,
he points to the development of broadcasting, which was not invented as an
isolated technology but developed through an extended process of technical
experiment and innovation. There was a social need for this type of technology,
which was based on social shifts in urban life, in which there was a need for a
broadcast paradigm.
 
▪ Innovation of technologies are not predetermined – The forms and functions
of technologies are not predetermined, rather they are based on decisions
made by human actors. For instance, when radio was in its formative stages of
development, one potential form was to be something resembling the
telephone. The main US telephone company lobbied to keep the ‘common
carrier’ network to itself. This shows how the development of the technology

74

 was very much dependent on existing political and economic situations in the
society. It is in this point that Williams brings a political economy perspective
into the shaping process, by considering how dominant groups in society
determine the shapes of technologies. Williams refers to counter-revolution, in
which the potential social benefits of technologies are not always realised due to
commodification of the technology.
 
▪ The notion that a new technology is inevitable is the result of marketing –
Williams believes the idea that technologies are inevitable is the result of
marketing from dominant groups, whose aim is to insure that the technologies
are accepted into society.
 
▪ Technologies would not necessarily follow the path initially envisioned, but
rather, because they are intertwined with social processes, would be caught up
in and shaped by social struggles. Technologies can be influenced by political
economy considerations, but they are never wholly controlled nor wholly
predicted by the outcomes of these activities. The future development of
communication technologies is not pre-determined by subject to the outcome
of wider battles over the shape and form of social life.

UNIT IV
 
Globalisation describes the acceleration of the integration of nations into the
global system. It contributes to the expansion of cultural ties between the
peoples and human migration.
 
It also refers to a broad range of events and trends: the development of world
ideologies, intense struggle for the establishment of world order; spike in the
number and influence of international organisations, the weakening of the
sovereignty of nation states, the emergence and development of transnational
corporations, the growth of international trade, intensive mass migration and the
formation of multi-cultural communities, the creation of planetary mass media
and the expansion of Western culture in all regions of the world, etc. The
analysis of relevant theories of globalisation trends shows that they have
become a kind of synchronous social change in the early - mid 20th century, and
there was this transformation so that it can be characterised as a social and
cultural shift.

The current era of globalisation, with its unprecedented acceleration and

intensification in the global flows of capital, labour, and information, is having a

75

 homogenising influence on local culture. While this phenomenon promotes the

integration of societies and has provided millions of people with new
opportunities, it may also bring with it a loss of uniqueness of local culture,
which in turn can lead to loss of identity, exclusion and even conflict. This is
especially true for traditional societies and communities, which are exposed to
rapid ‘modernisation’ based on models imported from outside and not adapted
to their context.

Balancing the benefits of integrating into a globalised world against protecting

the uniqueness of local culture requires a careful approach. Placing culture at the
heart of development policies does not mean to confine and fix it in a
conservative way, but on the contrary to invest in the potential of local resources,
knowledge, skills and materials to foster creativity and sustainable progress.
Recognition and respect for the diversity of cultures also creates the conditions
for mutual understanding, dialogue and peace.

Mass Society Theory

Mass society theory is a complex, multifaceted perspective. As applied to social

movements, however, the basic idea is that people who are socially isolated are
especially vulnerable to the appeals of extremist movements. The theory

resonated with fears of fascist and communist movements in the 1930s and
1940s and reached its apogee in the late 1950s.

Ideologically, the concept of mass society has been used by conservative

thinkers to express dismay about the levelling tendencies of industrial society
and the declining influence of family and community. It has also been used by
radical thinkers to bemoan the manner in which large bureaucratic institutions

76

 (especially in the guise of mass culture) can pacify populations and rein- force
the status quo.

With increasing size and complexity, social integration became problematic in

two ways. Anomie involves insufficient regulation of behaviour while egoism
involves excessive individuation of people. Both signify weakened social
integration and loosened social controls that contribute to dysfunctional
outcomes, including suicide. The same logic applies to many types of
unconventional behaviour.

Alongside crowds, publics, and social movements, masses are distinguished by

their large size, anonymous nature, loose organisation, and infrequent
interaction. As such, the concept of a mass connotes a group ripe for
manipulation and control.

Recalling Durkheim’s analysis, mass society emerges when small local groups
and networks decline, leaving powerful elites and massive bureaucracies on one
side and isolated individuals on the other. As Kornhauser wrote: “Mass society is
objectively the atomised society, and subjectively the alienated population.
Therefore, mass society is a system in which there is high availability of a
population for mobilisation by elites . . . [p]eople who are atomised readily
become mobilised”. Put slightly differently, mass society is one where “both
elites and non-elites lack social insulation; that is, when elites are accessible to
direct intervention by non-elites, and when non-elites are available for direct
mobilisation by elites”.

In a healthy pluralist democracy, both elites and non-elites are partially insulated,
intermediate groups are strong, and normal channels of influence are robust. In
mass society, both groups lose this insulation, intermediate social buffers erode,
normal channels are ineffective or bypassed.

Globalisation of culture - is accelerating the integration of the nations in the

world system with the development of modern means of transport and
economic relations, and the formation of transnational corporations and the
global market, thanks to the people of the media. The term “globalisation of
culture” appeared in the late 80’s of the 20th century in connection with the
problem of convergence of nations and the expansion of cultural relations of the
peoples. It has positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, it allows people
to communicate more with each other and learn about each other. Expansion of
cultural contacts in the modern world, communication and knowledge to bridge
gaps between nations. Globalisation describes the acceleration of the
integration of nations into the global system with the development of modern

77

 means of transport and economic links, thanks to the people of the media. It
contributes to the expansion of cultural ties between the peoples and human
migration. However, it is continuing the dangerous loss of cultural identity. The
younger generation learns from each other's fashion, habits, preferences, habits,
causing them to become like, a frequently simply faceless. Potential loss of
cultural identity lies in the growing threat of assimilation - absorption of low
culture of the larger, dissolution culturally minority in the culture of a great
nation, heedless of the paternal culture in mass emigration to another country
and getting their citizenship. Preservation of cultural identity in contemporary
society was measured as the highest achievement of civilisation. Previously, it
did not pay attention, so absorbed by another, one nation, dissolving a culture
without the rest of the conquered people. So it was at the time of European
colonisation of Latin America and Africa.
 
Globalisation's advocates argue that wealth invigorates culture, and that trade
and access to international markets are the best way to create wealth. They
point out that the Internet, for example, has given developing peoples all over
the world a low-cost way of bringing crafts, textiles, and art to western
consumers. In his book In Defence of Global Capitalism, Swedish author Johan
Norberg argues that because of emerging technology, developing countries that
quickly embrace borderless trade can make the leap to western world living
standards in a fraction of the time it once took. 
 
Opponents of globalisation argue that the playing field isn't level. Free trade
naturally favours larger economies, they say, and so the predominant western
influence stifles the cultures and traditions of the developing world.
 
However, given the negative aspects of globalisation, the state does not remain
on the sidelines. Held cultural policy in these countries. Cultural policy is a
system of interventions, funded, regulated and largely implemented by the state
(as well as individuals), aimed at the preservation, development and
enhancement of the cultural heritage of the nation. In the field of cultural policy
often raises the following questions:

• How to preserve the cultural heritage of the nation and is available to all ethnic
and social groups?
• Are all languages used are of equal status and whether in the country's cultural
and linguistic discrimination?
• Is the official state language the language of their ancestors, or a legacy of
colonial rule?

78

 • The extent to which minority languages are supported by the state, and to
which they are caring families and communities?
• The extent to which these languages are used for the preservation of the
cultural and social differences in society, the expansion and contraction of the
antagonism of language groups?

Cultural policy in many countries today is reoriented from the model of

assimilation, in which minorities abandon their cultural traditions and values,
replacing them with the traditions upheld by the majority, the multicultural-
temperature model, where the individual is socialised to the dominant and
ethnic cultures. In the U.S., millions of people speak English and their ethnic
languages, say national and ethnic festivals, and study the history of the country
and the nation. Global international migration stimulated restructuring the
economy of underdeveloped countries: under the influence of mechanisation
and industrialisation, which penetrated from developed countries, the
agricultural sector is shrinking and millions of rural people to migrate to cities in
search of work. They are attracted urban lifestyle. At the same time the middle
class citizens, focused on Western standards of living tend to look for more
qualified and prestigious job is not at home, but, say, in the U.S. or Western
Europe.
 
Thus, in spite of serious problems, globalisation has given the development of
modern art a positive trend, has allowed the local artistic scene enter into the
international context, encouraged the funding of various initiatives in the field of
contemporary art, and also contributed to the development of the market and
the mass interest in the field of creativity and critical reflection. Globalisation of
culture contributes to the exchange of cultural values of different countries, the
convergence of traditions. For cultural globalisation characterised convergence
of business and consumer culture between the different countries of the world
and the growth of international communication. On the one hand, this leads to
the promotion of individual national cultures around the world. On the other
hand, the popular international cultural phenomena may displace national or
turn them into international. Many regard this as a loss of national cultural values
and fight for the revival of the national culture.
 
 

79

 CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS
 
Artefacts, or material objects constitute a society’s material culture. In the most
simple societies, artefacts are largely limited to a few tools, the huts people live
in, and the clothing they wear. One of the most important inventions in the
evolution of society was the wheel.
 
Although the wheel was a great invention, artefacts are much more numerous
and complex in industrial societies. Because of technological advances during
the past two decades, many such societies today may be said to have
a wireless culture, as smartphones, netbooks and laptops, and GPS devices now
dominate so much of modern life. The artefacts associated with this culture were
unknown a generation ago.
 
Technological development created these artefacts and new language to
describe them and the functions they perform. Today’s wireless artefacts in turn
help reinforce our own commitment to wireless technology as a way of life, if
only because children are now growing up with them, often even before they
can read and write.
 
Sometimes people in one society may find it difficult to understand the artefacts
that are an important part of another society’s culture. If a member of a tribal
society who had never seen a cell phone, or who had never even used batteries
or electricity, were somehow to visit the United States, she or he would
obviously have no idea of what a cell phone was or of its importance in almost
everything we do these days. Conversely, if we were to visit that person’s society,
we might not appreciate the importance of some of its artefacts.
 
Folklore and Festivals
“Oral traditions” and “folklore” vitally connect us with the imaginations and
histories of “the folk”—often ordinary men and women who created and
continue to create our world—and substantially form our sense of belonging or
not to ethnic, national, gendered, professional and other groups. Oral narratives
and folklore include cosmogonies, folktales and fairy tales, legends, epics, ghost
stories, jokes, ballads, chants, proverbs or wise sayings, and mythologies. And
yet, “oral traditions” and “folklore” are not coterminous. Oral traditions function
socially as popular history and literature, depending on their specific cultural and
socio-historical location. Folklore, a latter term includes non-verbal traditions
such as festivals, food-ways, and ethnic dance, performance, and theatre as well
as verbal expressions of popular history and literature. 
 

80

 Festivals are a part of the non-material culture, as they present art, customs and
cultural symbolism. They may be an emanation of the local or regional culture
(small, e.g. community-based or regional festivals), but also of the global culture
(large-scale film or music festivals). They represent high culture (e.g. classical
music, ballet festivals), but are also organised by the creators of pop-culture.
They are used in politics, too, e.g. for the promotion of a political party or
individual politicians, perform important social functions and play a growing
economic role. Festivals are an important element of most aspects of culture.
Therefore, the development and the growing importance of culture are followed
by the increasing role of festivals in the contemporary world.
 
Nowadays, many festivals are not connected with a specific place or community;
they are held at different locations and refer to global culture (e.g. some film or
music festivals). In this sense, they do not refer to specific nationalities or social
groups sharing the same values, language or history. Moreover, a particularly
important element is the experiences factor, generating demand for festivals.
 
Cuisine
Wandering in search of food since the dawn of time, man has placed his survival
in two practical principles: the gathering of anything edible and hunting. As a
result, man’s first “cultural” efforts largely involved the issue of how to find food
and open the way for his extraordinary omnivorous drive.

 
Among many, control over food has historically been one of the major resources
of power. Food can also be a mark of power in terms of social prestige. But it is

81

 interesting to observe that the cultural perception of these types of prestige are
quite complex and sometimes even contradictory.
 
The so-called adjunct values of food, i.e., all those meanings found in food that
are not mere nourishment, are actually capable of bringing out the identity of a
person or group. Thus, the what and how of eating can constitute the object
that makes it possible to identify and be identified.
 
Similarly, the table is a way to define roles and relationships between those
present. For example, the difference between roles of men and women in some
societies in the past (with the former seated and the latter on their feet, serving),
or the monarch who eats alone, while its modern-day incarnation can be seen in
formal situations (diplomatic or political banquets). Even the shape of the table
itself (rectangular or round) is an element of social hierarchy or democracy. In
addition, the place where one sits has a precise meaning depending on the
historic, social or political context.

Similarly, sharing of food, or who gets which piece as opposed to another, is not
casual, but rather the translation of relationships of power and prestige within
the group.
 
Similarly, the quality and quantity of food is an expression of culture, culinary
tradition and, at the same time, social status. How and how much someone eats
derives from and reveals the social standing of that individual. Another example
is that of what is known as the cuisine of migrants which is continuously
occupied with the problem of preserving its identity while measuring it against
that of others
 
To conclude, food is a way to present oneself and a means for cultural exchange.
In fact, through codes of communication, it transmits a set of symbolic values
and various types of meanings (economic, social, political, religious, ethnic,
aesthetic, etc.). The food system contains and transports the culture, traditions
and identity of a group and constitutes the initial means to enter into contact
with different cultures.
 
Sports

Sports and culture have intrinsic value to people and

places as well as promoting health and well- being,
cultural enrichment, and prestige and branding. Many
people derive enjoyment from sport and culture in

82

 their free time. This may involve actively participating in sport or partaking in a
form of culture themselves, attending matches, performances, exhibitions or
festivals, or following sporting and cultural events in the media. Within the broad
domain of leisure time use, both sport and culture are an explicit focus of central
and local government policy, in particular. This policy attention is based largely
on arguments about encouraging people to be active, ensuring that there are
facilities to enable them to do so and making those activities and facilities
accessible to everyone.
 
Art and architecture
Architecture is a manifestation of the cultural context in which it resides. The
form and relationships of buildings and spaces act as a kind of “cultural marker"
that can be read, similar to the way one might read a newspaper or road map for
information, to describe the way of life and social status of its inhabitants.
"Buildings are, in fact, matrices for social structure."

The basic needs of a society can be quite different depending upon the culture.
For example, one culture may be far better off in terms of material comforts, in
which case their basic needs may include attitudes about the comfort level of
heating in a structure.
 
The very essence of every built form or built up environments is the
manifestation of culture masked behind its layers of abstraction. The
manifestation may be royal and imposing like those of the mighty empires, or
may be simple and yet powerful to create an identity for those who adhere to it.

83

 It’s similar to an artist who paints his canvas and there by builds a sanctuary in
the hearts of people and lives forever through his work. Elaborating the
expression of culture on the built form is usually the unconscious effort of every
designer. In fact, culture plays a dominant role at the very out set of any design
process. This is because, any design when conceptualised to perform a desired
function, is directly or indirectly derived from or synchronised with the cultural
identity of the user. It is what frames our thought processes. It defines individual
identity and helps to recollect past memories.

Even this seemingly insignificant aspect of a society can vary widely and leads to
drastically different built forms. In traditional Japan or even in India, for example,
the kitchen is one of the very few areas of the house that are considered to be
the "woman's domain," and is specifically designed for her use in terms of scale
of the space and arrangement of equipment. In a sense, the room becomes a
cultural space because human concerns, in addition to functional requirements,
are considered in its conception.
 
Degrees of privacy within a society can determine a certain range of
architectural responses. Views about personal worth, territoriality, and sex can all
impact the form of the built environment. An example of this would be people's
attitudes about being naked. Some cultures welcome this and hence their
architecture tends to be more visually open to the public, whereas other cultures
with more modesty- oriented attitudes tend to be more closed. Finally, a
culture's means of interacting socially can influence the design of the
architecture.
 
Reviewing the way a culture's basic needs are fulfilled, the family hierarchy
structure, attitudes about the role of women and privacy, and the way a society
interacts socially can all aid in deciphering architectural forms.

MEDIA AND CULTURE

The media affects people in varied ways, some of which are good while others
aren't as pretty.
How culture affect media and media affect culture? Today in the twenty-first
century, there is no doubt that with the social development media and culture
have an intimate relationship, which can interactive affect each other. Media
culture is the dominant form of culture which socialises us and provides materials
for identity in terms of both social reproduction and change.
 

84

 Culture has a huge impact on media communication ways and adoption. Media
rapid development and the rise of new media are the result of the cultural needs
of people.
 
Let's take a look at the good and negative side of media's influence on culture.
(+)
The media has its way of showing us constructive information when it comes
to news channels, travel and other educational shows. Kids benefit from
watching these, since it can boost self-esteem, heighten interest levels in a
particular subject, or encourage them to ask relevant questions.

(-)
Violence is a major factor when it comes to media, being a potentially
dangerous instigator when it comes to young audiences. Kids are influenced
easily by what they see on television or the Internet, mimicking such acts (if
not as extreme, though on the lines of violence) on elders, or kids their age.
 
 
(+)
We have a sense of what is happening around us, with a fair insight about
how things work elsewhere on the globe. We can view the world through the
television, even if we are rooted in one spot the whole time. It is a getaway to
places unknown, foreign, and magical with knowledge of what goes on around
us without being physically present in that place.

(-)
Advertising can jeopardize one's idea of what beauty and health is, seeing
that products revolve around these two aspects in an outrageous fashion.
Kids can become obsessed with the way they look, especially through beauty
reality shows and magazines. It can lead to health problems like anorexia and
bulimia, or use the antics of questionable celebrities in the industry as
influences.
 
(+)
The media in all its forms can introduce us to creative outlets that can help us
better ourselves in different ways, be it in our personal or work lives. It can
change our perspectives and push us to do more than what we limit ourselves
to. It can also help us engage with other people around the world, and be
more open and understanding towards other cultures.

(-)
The media can influence one to do things that aren't moral, like getting into
substance abuse. Movies portray habits that are unhealthy as 'cool' or
'mature', forcing kids to be at par with cliques who use media as a tool to
manipulate vulnerable kids of the sort.
85
 

 COMMODIFICATION OF CULTURE

The term tradition can generally be defined as the quintessence of cultural

authenticity over a period of time. Nevertheless, the word in fact only makes
sense when pairing it with modernity as its opposite. The contemporary period,
which is steadily moving forward, always serves as a means to measure tradition.
It can therefore be stated that tradition is eternal. However, one must not
separate the two terms, as this would lead to the wrong conclusion, namely to
assume a dichotomy of traditionalism and modernity. In fact, they exist
alongside each other and this exact overlap constitutes commodification.
 
One perspective is that commodification provides active employment of culture,
which helps to preserve and adapt activities. Since promoting culture is a rather
complex issue, the commercialised cultural goods will always be an adjustment,
which fits consumption needs and thus gives the commodity it’s clear purpose.
 
“we sell what we think will sell instead of selling what we think should be sold.”
Over the last centuries, there has been a great spread of products being
commodified, leading to the expansion of cultural industries. The
interrelationship between authentic, artistic manufacture and market production
plays a central role here.

The demand for artistic craftwork and cultural goods was prevalent, yet they also
had to be produced and placed on the market. Consequently, indigenous
cultures were pressed for time not to lose track of the changing economic
structure. Several communities, hence, relented to the commoditisation of their
cultural expressions as it promised to be of economic benefit such as the
creation of new professions and jobs. Especially women started entering the
new market of necessity. Nonetheless, as a side effect they became more
independent as they were able to liberate themselves from the established,
conventional system .

Early commodification theories argue that the process of commodifying native

culture rather results in alienation than in protection of the latter. A loss of
authenticity could thus be noted which would ultimately lead to a different
perception of history. Unbridled commodification could easily influence culture
and social relations when focusing too much on capitalist production. It is
therefore necessary to aim at combating the pure acceptance and spread of
such new moral opinions in order to prevent traditions from declining.
Both extremes, complete commodification as well as complete non-
commodification, could cause serious disruption. Non-commodification, for

86

 instance, would lead to the exclusion of important, social and participant

involvement within society. Hence, it has to be decided in every case and
repeatedly anew over time whether a certain degree of commodification is
appropriate.
 
TECHNOLOGY, URBANISM AS FACTORS OF CULTURAL CHANGE
[CASE OF MCDONALDISATION OF SOCIETY]
 
McDonaldisation is a concept developed by American sociologist George Ritzer
which refers to the particular kind of rationalisation of production, work, and
consumption that rose to prominence in the late twentieth century. The basic
idea is that these elements have been adapted based on the characteristics of a
fast-food restaurant—efficiency, calculability, predictability and standardisation,
and control—and that this adaptation has ripple effects throughout all aspects of
society.
 
George Ritzer introduced the concept of McDonaldisation with his 1993 book,
The McDonaldisation of Society. Since that time the concept has become central
within the field of sociology and especially within the sociology of globalisation.
The sixth edition of the book, published in 2011, has been cited nearly 7,000
times.
 
According to Ritzer, the McDonaldisation of society is a phenomenon that occurs
when society, its institutions, and its organisations are adapted to have the same
characteristics that are found in fast food chains. These include efficiency,
calculability, predictability and standardisation, and control.
 
Ritzer's theory of McDonaldisation is an
update on classical sociologist Max Weber's
theory of how scientific rationality produced
bureaucracy, which became the central
organising force of modern societies through
much of the twentieth century. According to
Weber, modern bureaucracy was defined by
hierarchical roles, compartmentalised
knowledge and roles, a perceived merit-
based system of employment and
advancement, and the legal-rationality
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e r u l e o f l a w. T h e s e
characteristics could be observed (and still
can be) throughout many aspects of societies

87

 around the world.

 
According to Ritzer, changes within science, economy, and culture have shifted
societies away from Weber's bureaucracy to a new social structure and order
that he calls McDonaldisation. As he explains in his book of the same name, this
new economic and social order is defined by four key aspects.

• Ef ciency entails a managerial focus on minimising the time required to

complete individual tasks as well as that required to complete the whole
operation or process of production and distribution.

• Calculability is a focus on quantifiable objectives (counting things) rather than

subjective ones (evaluation of quality).

• Predictability and standardisation are found in repetitive and routinised

production or service delivery processes and in the consistent output of
products or experiences that are identical or close to it (predictability of the
consumer experience).

• Finally, control within McDonaldisation   is wielded by the management to

ensure that workers appear and act the same on a moment-to-moment and daily
basis. It also refers to the use of robots and technology to reduce or replace
human employees wherever possible.
 
Ritzer asserts that these characteristics are not only observable in production,
work, and in the consumer experience, but that their defining presence in these
areas extends as ripple effects through all aspects of social life. McDonaldisation
affects our values, preferences, goals, and world-views, our identities, and our
social relationships. Further, sociologists recognise that McDonaldisation is a
global phenomenon, driven by Western corporations, the economic power and
cultural dominance of the West, and as such it leads to a global homogenisation
of economic and social life.
 
The Downside:
After laying out how McDonaldisation works in the book, Ritzer explains that this
narrow focus on rationality actually produces irrationality. He observed, "Most
specifically, irrationality means that rational systems are unreasonable systems.
By that, I mean that they deny the basic humanity, the human reason, of the
people who work within or are served by them." Many have no doubt
encountered what Ritzer describes here  when the human capacity for reason
seems to be not at all present in transactions or experiences that are marred by

88

fi

 a rigid adherence to the rules and policies of an organisation. Those that work
under these conditions often experience them as dehumanising as well.
 
This is because McDonaldisation does not require a skilled workforce. Focusing
on the four key characteristics that produce McDonaldisation has eliminated the
need for skilled workers. Workers in these conditions engage in repetitive,
routinised, highly focused and compartmentalised tasks that are quickly and
cheaply taught, and thus easy to replace. This kind of work devalues labor and
takes away workers' bargaining power. 
 
The characteristics of McDonaldisation have crept into the consumer experience
too, with free consumer labour folded into the production process and in other
areas of life, like education and media too, with a clear shift from quality to
quantifiable measures over time, standardisation and efficiency playing
significant roles in both, and control too.

89