Civilization and Culture

Terms, theories, names

 Origins I.
• Beginning of 19th century: stone instrument
found in England and France 1. the Devil’s deed
2. early mankind (?)
• Since 16th century – Europeans meeting remote
cultures who are they in the Genesis 1. separate
Genesis; 2. lost tribes of Izrael (?)
• (Todorov: The Morals of History)
• Till the beginning of 17th century: remnants of
lost civilisations
• So: interprtetion within the Biblical framework
only
 Origins II.
• James Hutton: 1795-ben – geological argument:
genesis story is wrong
• Darwin: The Origin of Species 1859. – selection
and mutation, processes of life, obeying laws of
nature
• Origins of both racist and liberal/tolerant position
(Mikluho-Maklaj);
• Idea of progress is broaden to society as well:
soc. is an outcome of comptetition too,
udergoing the same phases: explains the
multiplicity of cultures
• Defining the stages – here starts the thinking
about culture, self reflexion of humanity
 Theories I.
• Linear evolution: 19th century (Lewis H. Morgan,
lawyer, NY 1877 The Ancient Society)
– Lower, medium and uper savagery
– Medium and upper barbarism
– civilisation
divided and defined the stages by technological
inventions, such as use of fire, bow, pottery in the
savage era; domestication of animals, agriculture in
the barbarian era; and development of the alphabet
and writing in the civilization based on notes by
colonial officials and his own expeditions)
Critics: a rigid position, BUT: holistic approach and
compartative method – for the first time
 Theories II.
• Diffusionism (1900 – 1930):
– Starting point: there are similar rites and habits in different and remote
location (e. g. cult of Sun)
– Explanation: 1. migration, contacts; 2. mankind is physically
homogenous, so the same thing can appear independently: simillar
answers to similar questions.
– But: the ‘primitives’ are not inventive they just borrow habits from
dominant cultures which radiates its models to the less developed
(Black, Roma etc.)
– Firs in Germany, later in England W: R. Rivers and Eliot Smith speak
about Egypt as centre of universal culture
– Mozart (free masons), Freud (Moses), R. Steiner (anthroposophy)
British occultism of 19th century, symbolist literature, later : Tibet (E.
Blavatsky – theosophy) etc – essentially
– Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) rise and fall of civilizations in between diff.
and evol.
– Critics: nobody can reconstruct the direction of „emanation” and the
question of who was first (relates to Nazi ideology: superior-inferior)
 Theories III.
• Historical particularism beginning of 20th cent
– Reaction to the evolutionism
– Each culture is unique, every nation has its own culture,
past determines the present
– 1. research should be done on connections of cultural-
social systems
– 2. should observe each culture from inside – not use our
own culture as starting point
– Franz Boaz the main theorist: evolutionism is arbitrary,
speculative and uncertain (difference between two
hammers is ok, but two religions? Family habits?)
– Once there is no such hierarchy – everything is different
– The other cultures can be observed only on their spot
(fieldwork) – he introduces cultural relativism.
– Cultural differences cannot be explained with biological
arguments.
 Theories III.
• Historical particularism neglected the similarities
. This was the starting point for functionalism
(1920-1950)
– The phenomena of a society can be explained by
functions which serve the well-being of the whole
society.
– Reject the historicizing position of the historical
particularists – the history of the pre-industrial
societies is not relevant since there is no written
documentation about it – speculation.
– The function of the separate elements should be
observed
 Theories IV.
• Bio-psychological functionalism:
– Bronislaw Malinowski: the social-cultural specificities are only
additional to biological and psychological needs of the humans
(food, reproduction, security, health)
– survival and well-being is the central issue everywhere, the
ways to achieve it is different in each society – in time and
space;
– Needs are collective – that’s why people create institutions, the
behaviour of the members should be regulated, and that’s what
people inherit to the next generations
– This functions only if the community members are emotionally
related to their way of life – cult. values, symbolic actions,
religion gives meaning to their life.
– A cultural system can be understood only if the observer knows
what is the relationship between the separate segments and the
whole. (see later Geertz)
– Criticism: too individualistic, does not explain the differences
 Theories V.
• Structuralis functionalizm:
– Focuses on social needs
– Radcliffe-Brown: human body – „body of the society”
metaphore;
– Every function is connected to other function – in case
there is a trouble – compensative mecchanistms;
– After disfunction follows balance – traditions and habits
are responsible for this, all norms and institutions are
interrelated and presume each other (holistic approach)
– Criticizm: 1.no answer to developement/change; 2.
neglects history: no mention of origin of the things. 3.
conflict is treated as a deviancy – it is not, it is a part of
normal situation
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/society-and-
culture/social-structures/v/social-theories-overview
 Late evolutionist theories
• The historical particularism had its influence: not all
societies undergo the same evolution, nevertheless
there is evolution (not the same one for each soc.)
• Theory of general evolution: Leslie White (1940-1960)
– There is an evolution, lifestyles and technologies develop –
development can be classified (only!) by use of technologies.
– Mostly the production and way of consumption of energy defines
the level of progress;
– All other changes are related to this – family models, economic
institutions, beliefs, norms of behaviour – all these are being
constructed and internalized an the basis of this.
– Criticism: problematic, because can not cope with the specific
cases;
 Late evolutionist theoriesII.
• Theory of specific evolution (Julian H. Steward)
– Corrects White’s weak point: the general theory can
not explain the separate peoples
– Consumption of energy is important, however the local
environment is just as relevant: the life of a population
is determined by mutual impact of technology and
environment (John Maynard Keynes – modern vs.
postindustrial/modern)
– 1. adaptation to the environment;
– 2. technology takes energy from the environment, but
in the same time reshapes it – how a society adopts to
this process;
– White and Steward mutually complement each other
 Modern materialist theories I.
• There are many of them, the common
element: the way of life is determined by
the form how the population acquires the
necessary thing for life
• Historical materialism (conflict theory)
– Starting point is Marx: production forces in the
ancient times and in the class societies : ideal
order vs. exploitation and unequal distribution
– Class struggle for re-distribution of tools of
production – new production system through
revolution; Marx today…
 Modern materialist theoriesII.
• Cultural materialism
– The main thing is how humans exploit the
nature;
– Environment and technology determines+
popularity, the quality of the relationship with
the neighbours;
– Marvin Harris: intensification – a process
which is a result of the mutual impact of man
and environment
 Idealist approaches I
• Materialism does not pay attention on cause-
and-effect relations e.g., thinking and reason
• Idealist position: the cultural perception and
classification of the reality does not depend on
the struggle for acquiring the sources for living –
it exists on it own (Max Weber) – Interactionist
theories
• structuralist studies activities as diverse as food
preparation and serving rituals, religious rites,
games, literary and non-literary texts, and other
forms of entertainment to discover the deep
structures by which meaning is produced and
reproduced within a culture.
 Idealist approaches II.
• Structuralism C. Levi-Strauss - Tropiques triste 1955:
– Structure: the structure of human reason: it shows how
the mind reconstructs contents: thoughts, motives,
symbols and objects
– That’s how it creates the culture;
– The mind is constituted by „binary oppositions” –
whatever we think we oppose it to something else.
– Thinking is an operational mode, which uses
oppositions: these are not real, nevertheless exist and
restructure the reality
– Structure of thinking is the same for the whole mankind
and this is what creates the culture
– Ergo: the differences in lifestyle are irrelevant to the
similarities in thinking and ‘culture generating’–
everything is based on connecting very similar
elements
– A bit suspicious though nice idea - .
 Idealist approaches II.
• Interpretive anthropology C. Geertz
– The social behaviour has symbolic aspects: we
should behave the way that others could be able to
understand us – Geertz deals with differences
between the societies.
– Each socio-cult system needs a separate way for
understanding because the similar elements very
often have completely different/deformed meaning.
– An explanation of the tradition-based behaviour:
each behaviour has a key given from within the
culture in order to be understandable for the bearers
of this culture – every social interaction is symbolic
and has a meaning
– The observer should capture the indigenous aspect
– Parallel with the historical particularists: there is no
need to search for a universal system of human
lifestyles: it’s all too complicated and interrelated that
nobody is able to unbound it
Music: "Cugu" by Wimme Saari from the album
´Cugu´ (2000)
• https://www.google.com/search?q=wimme+cugu&rlz=1C1GCEU_huHU
923HU923&biw=1547&bih=683&tbm=vid&sxsrf=AJOqlzUDnxnX1v2bax
dWHb4-
YXQGqWWo4w%3A1678044032159&ei=gOsEZOykCZeP9u8PwbGA8
Aw&oq=Wimme+Cugu&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LXZpZGVvEAEYADIGC
AAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB5QAFgAYKg5aABwAHgAgAGhAYgBoQGSAQ
MwLjGYAQCgAQKgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-
video#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f37414ca,vid:5Ac3Wz8A-B8
• Wimme has explored the possibilities of the Sami
(Lapp) vocal tradition of the joik (a kind of
Scandinavian traditional chant), placing it in a modern
context, surrounded by loops, beats, and
contemporary instruments. The result, especially
here, is far more abstract than other Finnish artists,
recalling the work of people like Current 93 more than,
say, Varttina.
• The joik is a unique form of cultural expression for the
Sami people in Sápmi. This type of song can be
deeply personal or spiritual in nature, often dedicated
to a human being, an animal, or a landscape as a
personal signature. Improvisation is not unusual. Each
joik is meant to reflect a person or place