THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE IN ETHNOLOGY Lena Gerhotm A cultural perspective S ceveral ethnologists today lead their scientific life strupsling fgainst the so-called MiVRiNVTOF Wholedessel” (Clifford & Marcus 1986) This, connotation of bounded wholeneses, ‘which has made many ethnologist seeptical towards the concept of culture, stomgelkom thee classical: definition bj Ediatd 2 Tylor CUSSLL/IS7D} “Culture... thar complex whole that includes knowledge, bli, art, moral Jaw, custom and all competences and habits that man has acquired being a member of society” (my emphasi) To pubitshoxtys Cultures; according to this definitions the way of life of a people. It consists of conventional paterns of thought And behaviour, including values, eles, res of conduct. Twill son come back to the various antidotes against the implications of bounded entities used by contemporary eltura researchers. Firs I want to remind the reader that this definition of culture is just one among over three hundred. Iti probably true to say that future belongs to those concepts which Galle (1955-1956) has described as “essentially contested concepts, that is, concepts that will always be in dispute but nevertheless survive."However, itis possible to discem some principles that the modein eoncept of culture entails for understanding human behavioar (cf Hatch 1985:178-179). Three of those guidelines for what it‘inedns to understand human work from a cultusal perspective axe: (1) The pattems which influence thought and behaviour ar learned, that i: all behaviour is pattemed on modal. This tn aso for our emotional bebaviour and “inner” felings. When we think we behave naturally we nevertheless act according to a Particular style that i common to people of our kind. Our ways of being happy as well as our ways of being angry are culturally learned, ven when we explode in anger we do it more or less in‘accordance with certain feeling rules, that is in a cultural way (Getholm 1987, Hochschild 1979, Wouters 1992). This view of hhuman thought and behaviour as culturally patterned asumes that people are malleable, for thre exists a wide variety of behavioutal (2) A lange part of culture is below the level of awareness. Culture consists of tacit knowledge, taken-for-grantedness implicit rules, hich people follow without being able to make them explicit. The ‘members ofa society share a large body of implicit conceptions of nature, morality, ways of behaving, although they ere not always ware of this fact. Culture is to us what the water isto the ish Invisible and so taken for granted that it cannot be described to a researcher — it has to be discovered, (@) Caltural patterns structure not only thought Bit also perce tion, The colour spectrum, for instance, «continuous gradation of hue, yet by cultural conventions it is broken up into distinct segments. At a certain point along the spectrum, by convention, category distinction is made between for example yellow Three paradigms ‘The leat common denominator in these three guidelines for un standing human life from a cultural perspective is thet culture is about sharedness. But in Swedish ethnology the opinions about what itis that is shared have changed during the last fifty yeas. With respect to this object of sharedness it is posible to distinguish three paradigms in the evolution of cultural theory in ethnology For the grand old man of ethnology, Siguid Esizon, the shared hess was about artefacts, Clue was euivalent to meri things from the old peasant society. Culture was concrete and observable It was possible 1o distinguish eultral areas in Sweden and draw cultural borders between tem. At these borders the shape and form ‘of houses, tols, clothes and artefacts changed and Sweden could be dlivided into five cultural areas ef Erixon 1957). This trend was broken in the 1960s when the modemist Ake Daun made the distinction between culture and cultural products. The Tater term, cultural products, was reserved for the artifats, material things in general as wellas actions and other observable phenomens Bur culture left this observable arena and moved into consciouses, Culture from now on was perceived as the experiences and values 6 | | that people share actions, but the a This prepared 1 ‘Swedish ethnolog man and Orvar Culture Buders Swedish bourgeo. ‘decade of the 20 thought of as sy interpreted by th These various wa iceberg, wit the moors | The ideas of culture ws Det Caltre was sr ven heard st fd unobeerat ‘eper down i wonvews, wt| shar people share with cach other. ‘The empirical tia study as Hetions, but the analytical goal was mental phenomena. Tine prepare the wa for the third paradigm In exttura theory it swedish ethnology, the cultural analysis represented by Jonas Fryk- et and Orvar Lofgren from Lund and their now clasical book: Cudtre Buslders (1981/1979), a study of the formation of she ‘Swedish bourgeoisie during the last decades ofthe 19th and the first spends of the 20th century, For these ethnologists culture is often thought of a8 symbols or worldviews and its meaning Bas 10 Be interpreted by the researcher The locality of culture these various ways of thinking about culture can be ilustrated by an ‘wth the largest part beneath the sea level: | Culture as | The ideas of where culture is located have changed. Inthe 1940s culture was peroeived to exist on a concrete and observable Level Culture was something that could be directly seen and sometimes ten heard, Buti de time this concept migrated to a more abstract, fand unobsewvable level, experiences and values, and continued ‘Geeper down in consciousness, to the meaning of symbols and mrcher cannot see it nor hear it, some- world-views, where the Tetimes not even ask the informants because they are not aware of it This leaves an expanding room forthe researchers act af discovery and intepretation. One could say that the context of culture hae changed from that of justfcarion, im the sense that onthe culture-ne artifact level justification and discovery was one snd the same, to that of discovery. Another way of formating this phenomenon to say that in the cultural research of the 1940s empirical entity an analytical entity was one and the sime, whereas in he ethnology of the 19805 they were not. In that period the analytical level-wor Somewhere else, often on an unconscious level: meaning of symbol, things taken for granted, informal rules ete This transformation has raised a problem, namely that of valida: tion ofthe research results. When culture was artifae's the researcher ould ask people about them, write the answers down or perhape point them out on a map and that was it. But mental pheremer: ‘specially those which people are unaware of, cannot be asked for and written down inthe same way. This isthe implication of soying {hat in the easier cultureas-atifact-ethnology discovery and justi «ation was one and the same operation, but in the ehnology ofthe 1980s this connection was broken. 1 think that most ethnologists Would agree that the possiblity of validation today lies in the researcher bein, first, careful and and, second, o itive inthe gathering of data With the data, letting colleagues red tin order to judge the interpretation. In cultural research there is hardly an absolute reality that can verify the analysis, but there is’ the possiblity of communication between the members of research community Back to the top of the ice-berg oxial situation is that inthe 1990s some ethalogst seem to turm their interest ack to the surface level of the foe berg, Ove factor that has contributed to this situation isthe postmodern tutn and its interacademic version usally called reflex. Now I am back were I started culture is about sharednes, about wholeness T have discussed the question of where this wholenss might be located. Now I will turn tothe discussion about the wholenese itsel which has had a central position inthe cltual scenes for sey During the 1980s the postmodern emphasis upan fragments ambivalenoss and inconsisteness has generated a seeps the isal atvra sieness, towards all such definitions of the concept of cura tat have the connotation of sharednes culture as shared aI ales and experiences, etre 3s collective consciousness, vent Ms apmbols which can be decoded and culture as deep- culufyre which forme the manifest observable: The anthropolonist ‘uarie Barth (1989), among others, has formulated that whole- Fret nd consistency should not be assumed, but empirically eos gated, Some evn, with similar arguments, tke the standpoint inte concept oF caltice should beavoided(et Ohlander 1995) “Spe ground for this standpoint to be found in the insight that ths bounded Toca cultures donot exist any longer they ever cis ce ee question). But the main basis is probably to be found in a changing theoretical framework, at iogy in the 1980s was for example affected by such language hears that emphasize that language as a life ofits own, indepen are ofthe speachers’ intentions and ideas (ef Gerholm & Gethoim {O89} According to this postmodern standpoint, that has been dimer attack I should acd, Hees i Ming behinayRheysigny bu ‘another sign and so on i eternity \ntertexuality isthe concept that has been used to refer to this tee ich also has been formulated in terms of moltvocalit, that ect idea that a voice never speaks alone, because in itis always the a tvof other voiees Accordingly a text is not primarily regarded 0s wrtirec expression of someone's consciousness, but rather a5 an expression of other texts ‘Mis means that a sign can be dissolved into millions of mea Ii doesnot stand for one distinet bundle of ides. The implication of oss standpoint is that other peoples’ idea, their consciousness, weave dinetly accesible tothe researcher. This postmodern stand Point thus impli a ertique of the ethnological way of thinking bout culture ss 4 dimension of collective consciousness, no matt ‘whether we thereby refer to shared experiences and values or shared mages anc woes, Postmodernism contains eitigue of every | hermeneutic form of understanding that sa variation upon the same themes form-content, signfiersignfied, manifestatent, surface Tenelcep level Thereby it is also a cttigue that affects the tihnological image of an overt cultural expression that could be {nlrprcted in order to gain knowledge about the hidden culture. ‘This viow presumes exactly that which postmodernism criticizes, namely ® split up in the object between something interior and fomctring extoe. All such assumptions should, according to the rrpostmodern thesis, be deconstructed and replaced by an interest in the signs per se in their surface, in the discourses which they are part tf This is erueal for here ies one reason fora renewed ethnological interest inthe top of thei not only concerns the materi, but also what i, exactly, said and done. Empirial and analytical entities seem to meet agin and the Shape ofthe ice-berg might be transformed into an hour-alas erg, although the contemporary interest The description of culture “This growing interest in such theories of language that postulate that Janguage doesnot primarily tell us about realty, Dut eretes realty, has lead to an expanding interest in so-called reflexivity, tat is, an interest in sertinizing our ethnographic descriptions and the reality that these evoke (c€ Ehn & Kiein 1989, Klein 1993). 1 has for txample been argued that cultural scientists do not describe any txternal reality, ethnographic descriptions are basically nothing but f strategial play with representations. This isthe core of what has bea elled the criss of representation (Marcus & Fischer 1986). And fide by side with it there has been a. greater emphasis upon the research situation, the interview situation and that whic is created there between the researcher and the other (¢fSilvén-Gamert 1993). The postmodern ertique of the possiblity of representation thus als hits the ethnological ambition to deserbe “what the other do” “how they are" and “what they think”, There has alo been an increased awareness of the strength of so-called “situational consen- sus", the momentary fragile intersubjectivty which Ins lead the Fescarchers to believe that what some informants tll them represent the culture of a whole group. Influenced by the postmodern discussion ofthe crisis of representation and reflexivity, some even hesitate to sey what comes out of @ mecting between 3 researcher and an informant should represent the other's ideas. What another person can tell us is only fragments ofall his or her dessideas ‘which ae interpreted by us, Our knowledge about othersis therefore flay partial and the result of our meeting with inforinants should be regarded as nothing but,a joint production of a text (Clfford 186, Wagner 1981), A lot of Glare invented in the dalogue and one standpoint s that the most honest ethnographic tet isthe one that restricts ifself to portraying and interpreting the dalogue and hothing outside it, An argument against this postion could be that there is as much selective perception on this level as beneath the ice 20art sical ‘and the ud erg, Neverteles there a renewed interest among some ethnoto Ba inthe bard surface, in what is sad and done pers, ia how sores and narratives are organized “According © this positon a cultural description can never be a sepresenation of another world, but only of specific converstio ‘Tis interest in multivocality as been inspired by Bakhtin and his transingusties which, in opposition to formalism, diteted the autention to unigue speech contexts, the temporary, the individual nd the performative, Te wat important to interpret and analyse th many voios and to respect their ireducibity not letting them be dominated by one's monologue (ef Bakhtin 1981, Hill 1986) “Transformed into the ethnographic description translinguisis raises two issues: fist, how can the researcher let different voiestalk without reducing their individuality to for example “culture” or “history second, how shall the voiee ofthe researcher interact with the ots vices? These are probably the most important questions to the relerve ethnologist. In raditional ethnography the multiplsityof he voices has been deimited"and orchestrated by one single voice that has reduce ll the others To “informans”. This Kind of monophone authority belonged toa sie that had the ambition to give a correct portrait of the cultures it had studied. But this view belongs to the past, according Jo-postmjndensthinkig: now its dialogue and polyphony that shall characterize the text (Chord 198613) “These insights should be seen in the written result, that isthe conclson inspired by postmodernism, There fas also been an ivseasing interest in einographic writing and discussions about bow one could do,the new insights fl justice in the writing of esearch results (ef Oblander 1993), Taterationally the reflexive turn began in anthropology more than a decade ago, but in Seandinavia its mainly the ethnologist of Stockholm and Gothenburg who have devoted themselves to the exploration of how knowiedge is produced (Arvasison 1988, Ehn ‘and Klein 1989), This awarenes ofthe constructed nature of cultural description has also supported a growing interest in the scientific fhetoric and in the techniques of creating authority around. a Scientific text (also Clifford 1983), A more focused study of the ethnological esearch process itself especially the “transformation of ‘experience into text” has boen underway for some yeas _Reflenivity has also nrned the interest ofthe researchers towards Afcmseles, One study of this Kind i a joint venture by the aanthropologist Tomas Gerholm and myself (Gerholm & Gerholm 1992). This is an investigation of disciplinary cultures with the ambition of atculating the tact knowledge that forms an important part of the cultural system of these disciplines, thereby hopefully shedding light on that part of one’s intellectual approach that is rarely outined in the theoretical introductions but sill operating in {he main text. ‘Unravelling the national culture ean be seen as a specific ex pression of the general interest taken in reflexivity during the latte half of the 1980s, The study of one's cultural ambience fs, in 2 teneral way, als a study ofthe lens through which one observes the ‘world, In Svensk mentaltet Ake Daun (1989) tres to dissect the mentality of the Swedes, he national traits of “communication, Apprehension, conflict avoidance in face-to-face interaction, social independence, litle open display ofsttong emotions, an osentation toward rationality and practicality and lutheran puritanism”” (1989:268. In his atest book Daun (1992) has red to grasp an even more extended totality, namely “The European identity". In the latest contribution to this field, Férrvenskningen ay Sverige (Eh, Frykiman, Lofgren 1993), Jonas Frykman questions ths image of Swedishness, In accordance with the intertextual insights he asks whether its possible to diferentiate experience from the narrative of the experience: "When we /.../ today want to investigate Swedish mentality we discover that we move in an echo-chamber whe ‘Questions and answers from different periods rebound between the walls. When we come to an agreement on what is "typically Swedish” we move in the world of narratives as much as in the world 285" (Frykman 1998:131) of experi The ontological status of culture So, what isthe ontological status of culture? Does it exist or is it nothing but an invention by the researchers? So far it is slear that postmodernism has made ethnolopists much more sensitve abou their material and writing. But is there also ground for throwing way the concept? Is the argument that culture does not exis, that it is just a construction by the researcher, strong enough? As I see it postmodernism gives ethnologist reason teriticize the concept and to revise it — but no reasons to throw away the concept. An increased awareness of the dialogue between researcher ans inform= fant and how thie should be transformed into text does not basically 2 hard culty figu inth G cut that that fic st ult ic exat Ga T othe Sh ise al T qua thee and oth clejerholm ith the (portent >peflly that is ic ex re later rves the sect the Tn the e hn, nage of he: asks ative of Swedish Where ‘een the vpicaliy world ar that about vowing sthatt Tse it eptand 2 An inform. asicaly say anything about the existence or nonexistence of culture. It is hard to find arguments for geting rd of the concept of culture if you try to find them in postmodern thinking. That people create realitie together when they tak with each other is sot an argument that talture in the traditional sense, as more or less shared thought figures, worldviews, construction of image, situational definitions and cosmologies, should not exist. To think that everything is created in the momental and specific interview situation is probably to take togmuch advantage ofthe recently acquired insights. ‘Culture exists at least in one minimal sense, namely emicaly Culture has place in everyday thinking, iis part of our common: Sense. It sa conceptual tool which people use when they are trying tonderstend that art of eeality which consists of man beines. In that sense al of us ae cultural analysts and it would be wrong to say that culture does not-exist CIEGre ily b= noting Buta Soe hetion, but iis nevertheless a realty, because the fictor ‘Studying culture in this minimal sense is thus to study people way of clasfying both themseves_and others. and. constructing images. of themselves_and others, his means lthatlealtures inherently comparative Hasteup 1985:314).Ithas been said that “/a ‘ealture” can materialize only in counterdstinetion to. anol culture” (Boon 1982:ix). This fact has nother implication, namely that “cultures interpenetrate symbolically, as they are constituted (ibidx) In order 1o become distinct cultures are selFlabelling and traggerating. themsclves, When they come to life as “eultures (astrup 1985:315). Ths all human beings have atleast rudimentary theories about other peoples and they ty to explnin these peoples” way of being and acting in a way that “works”, that isin a way that is intuitively satisiying, One characteristic trait of the folk consciousness about “them and “us” is the sharp contradiction: “/../ the cultural discourse is @ discourse with implied negatives, because it is also always a discourse about that which itis nt” (Hastrup 198515). ‘This way of cultural thinking is arbiteary and takes notice of some qualities among several, Thus, emically cultures are. constituted through negative comparisons. They are nothing in themselves, se for theit members the are just the provinces of naturalness and transparency, but they come into existence in contrast with each other. But they exist, with the same right as every conception exists. ‘And here, on the emia level, there are sharp boundaries between lear and marked entities, Disciplinary identities for exemple are 23often constructed through contradictory comparisons with other academic diseiplnes. Seen from an ethnological perspociveanthro- pologiss study “social structure, we study “culture: sociologists work quantitatively, we work qualitatively; psychologists study individuals, we study collectives. ‘This immediately raises the question: is there an etic culture? Is there an absolute and distinct entity that we can call cubure? When the question of clture is debated i is most often this etieculture that is referred to. There are probably cultures also in this ese, but it coms more dificult to study them. How shall qualitative researchers like ethnologist ever be able to investigate cultural tris, decide where a culture stars and where it ends and to What extent its members are comprebended by it. It is alo in this serse that the concept of culture has been criticized, But sil: cultures exist and thus the concept of culture could be undetstood as an ontological concept, But culture is also a perspective used by the researcher, therefore it san analytical concept as well Antidotes against the “tyranny of wholenesses” Theee hasbeen several interesting attempts to modify the concept of tare in order to make it more useful for empirical research inthe contemporary complex society, The tendeney ie to try to handle egres of culture in terms of for example social distabution of knowledge, idioverses, that is the individual version of an culture. One ofthe most interesting attempts is made by LIf Hannere (1983, 1992) through the concept culturality. Quite in accordance withthe extque of the eoneept of culture just referred to, he says that culture should not be considered as something ‘horoughly coherent, embraced and permanent, but as a phenomenon charac- terized by varying degrees of these qualities, Thus, forthe study of complex societies Hannere finds the concept of caltumalty more than the concept of culture The degree of coherency implies that such ideas that influence cach other, that lead to each other and that support each other are ‘more cultural than those that are not connected to each other, The degree of embracement implies that ideas that ate shared by many persons are more cultural than those that are embraced by only a few persons. “And, finally, long-lasting ideas are more cultural than momenta whims. Ethnologists at well as anthropologists have long felt 4 cu the the th hu cu of G Biv tha 19 resons with other spective anthro 12 sociologists hofoists study tc culture? Is teulture? When ‘ticculture that his sense, but it itive researchers a tril, decide ‘what extent its sense that the leares exist and ‘an ontological he researc slenesses” the concept of research in the tty to handle Aistrbution of on of a main oy UitHannerz in accordance red to, he says 1g thoroughly ‘menon charac: or the study of Aturality more that influence ach other are ach other. The "ated by many ced by only & an momentary ave Tong. felt comfortable in the upper part of the scales of euturality, tut now, ‘ys Hanner, its ime to move downstairs, tothe ambivalency, 0 the not fly shared, and to the short-time and temporary cultures, This is one way of adapting to postmodernity and a changing ‘world, Culture has by Hannerz been transformed from an idealized model without a correlate in realty to a set of continua where empirical cases can be placed, This is a theoretical step forward, although part ofthe methodological work is still waiting tobe done Empirically itis tl difficult to say where a culture starts and where itstomn Another antidote against the “tyranny of wholeness” is to emphazise that culture is something in eternal flux, in constant transformation, something created and recreated (¢f Bhn 1933:7-8) Cultural change has always been an important topic in ethnology but the explanatory model has been monocausal (Gethola 1993), Culture has been regarded as a kind of representation ofthe social ‘world; once the social structure changes it has consequences atthe level of ideas that is, at the level of culture Catture is regarded as something passive that people carry and Which guides their actions I is probably wise to avoid tis way of handling the concept of culture, since there is a isk that it contributes to exoticizing other people by reducing the siilariies and exaggerating the differenes (ef Wikan 1992) Nowadays the concept of culture has invaded the word outside the cultural sciences (ef Aratberg 199%). Tt heeame poplar ding the eighties to describe socal ie in working places, dayeare centers, fesidential quarters in term of culture. Outside Academia its offen this passive concept that is assumed, a concept that tends to make people into passive caries of various cultures. In conterrporary ‘thnology, however, culture is perceived as playing an active Fle in ‘human life tis assumed to have both an of aspect and a foraspect Cattue consists of models of, images of reality, but atthe same time Of models for, scenatios for action in the conceptualized realty (Goertz 19735-11, Gerholm 1935:96-120), In that way culture is fiven an active tole It does not just represent and express social Structure, but also shapes and forms it (Ortner 1990). The roint i that culture is as much structuring as itis structured (ef Codd 1990:139. This view of culture challenges ideas of monocausality which regard culkure as 2 kind of epiphenomenon of social strctute, ‘conomy or evology. Ie challenges the idea tha there is one tucture values, norms ee,in society (economy, social structure, ecology) that is domieaat and i another structure (culture) that x pasive and mainly a eetion of the other (Ohnuki-Tiemey 1990), i Such polattis are false, because the individual camot act | independently of culture, her intentions are toe grea extent | culturally constructed, And culture, that is the meaning, values, ideologies, is always embedded inthe individual’ actions. This way | of understanding culture is expressed in one ofthe recent divert, tion in ethnology in Stockholm (Ronstrém 1992), where “Yugosa ian” dancing is seen asa way of expressing social experience, atthe Al same time as these, through the dancing are confined, Te denne i says something about the dancers, but it also doss something to them, ] Aird way of avoiding the connotation of bounded wholenesss has been 0 focus upon microsituaions and emphasie eit jnterentpolysemi In every communicative situation thee is ambi valence and complexity. This ean facilitate transformation 28 well preveat it, Mos phrases, actions and symbols are polysemie end can || ‘reat situations in which the actors interpret them in diferent ways Hh — perhaps without ever realizing this, 1 | AA fourth antidote is to take cultural complenity per se as the | subject of research, Several ethnologist in Stockholm have danéso I Ina book called BlandSverig, edited by Ake Daun and Bily Eh (41989) most contributions attempt to depict ethnicity in action cthnie groups stereotyping each other and/or showing off their own culture to others in a very selL-conscious way. A few of th I) suthors behind this hook have launched a joint research proet on | The Social and Cultural Organization of Diversity". ‘The main Wi focus of this large-scale study is set on the emerging official efinition of Sweden asa “mmult-cleural soci Wi Conclusion | The const of tras en under aac, Clue inthe sens of H| ‘hounded entity of shared ideas and expectations tnt “elon 10 | | i andinavia where a substantial portion of the population is made laborat: inand The degrees descrip no long, the othe (Onn of a co Deon ie hn hteae ominant and reflection of reat extent ings, values, ts. This way tent disertae ee Yugoste fences; atthe The dance Dmething 10 wholeness sazise. their ere is ambi- mas well as anieand can Tetent ways 1 se as the ve done.” 4 Billy Ehn In action T thei own the many roject o The main oficial he sense of slong” to discarding ces from Situation in nis made 4 cultural laboratory just around the corner only waiting for someone to step in and do the work, and several ethnologists have also done so, The ethnological project in a fastly transforming society nests renewed analytical tools, Culture is about sharedness, but this i never total, Culture should be thought of as degres of integration 3f various dimensions in a society. Therefore a concept that build on degrees, rather than on absolutes, is needed. Another theoretial work, waiting to be donc, it facilitate the explanation and description of cultural change. Models of monocausality, where Structure i opposed to culture, external factors to internal ones, are ‘no longer realistic. ach pote is instead tobe regarded as included in the other and they influence eachother in spiral of transformation (cf Ohnuki-Tiemey 1990), What is acutely needed is the development ‘ofa concept of culture that could take this fact into consideration, References ‘te 9 eg haa ft ale — prin ht Tp epi An een of Yn Pew inion on eae oof Bh tlt ea "Ane eT ot mt tn ca, Dae ete Ae fran ak ao ee ds See Bi td SS ont prep sa at a ic yn Bee red ars Se Ort ‘yt awn a Sh ne "ey nt Ee ery tb Cas “thet 5) row nent ase Ne pee mc Ragen Gay Fe fees vase Foe n