"looking glass self"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cooley

Cooley's concept of the "looking glass self" is undoubtedly his most famous, and is known and accepted by most psychologists and sociologists today. It expanded William James's idea of self to include the capacity of reflection on its own behavior. Other people's views build, change and maintain our self-image; thus, there is an interaction between how we see ourselves and how others see us. According to Cooley, in his work "Human Nature and the Social Order", his "looking-glass self" involved three steps:

1) To begin, we picture our appearance of ourselves, traits and personalities.

2) We then use the reactions of others to interpret how others visualize us.

3) We develop our own Self-concept, based on our interpretations. Our Self-concept can be enhanced or diminished by our conclusions.

Cooley's theories were manifested in response to a three-fold necessity that had developed within the realm of society. The first of which was the necessity to create an understanding of societal phenomena that highlighted the subjective mental processes of individuals yet realized that these subjective processes were effects and causes of society's processes. The second necessity examined the development of a social dynamic conception that portrayed states of chaos as natural occurrences which could provide opportunities for "adaptive innovation." Finally, a need to manifest publics that were capable of exerting some form of "informed moral control" over current problems and future directions.

Cultural and coercive constrains

Ernest Gellner "culture, constrain and community"

Community is a population which shares a culture. Culture is what a population shares and what turns it into a community. The shared traits are transmitted semantically. Cultural behaviour is not dictated genetically and cannot be reproduced.

The diversity in actual conduct found among members of the single species is incredible. At the same time, members from a single on-going same community resemble each other to a marked degree.

How does man who is born genetically free in everywhere in cultural chains?

A plausible theory claims that home sapiens acquired his intelligence in the course of working out devices for predicting and managing that waywardness, deviousness and cunning of his fellows. But that is not enough. There must be a necessary conditional discipline.

It is reasonable to suppose that without local homogenization, standardization, discipline, human community would be unviable. Highly unpredictable and wildly diversified members of a local group or herb simply would not be capable of cooperating. Therefore, they must develop a system of markers, which set bounds to what is what is not done in any one community. (E.g. language as a modular system of markers.)

A culture is a system of constrains, limiting an endlessly labile set of possibilities within bounds which are themselves also very complex and apply to a very wide range.

Such diversity can be seen in two levels:

1. Intra-social diversity. It permits the great complexity of social organisation which in turn allows the exploration of cultural alternatives of great power. Durkheim’s ideas on mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity show this kind of diversity.

2. Inter-social diversity. Marked as Adam Smith’s division of labour. The differentiated activities developed to the point of refinement where it great enhanced our well being and prosperity. Division of labour requires ability of conceptualization, to enhance efficiency and productivity.

It has economic consequence as well as socio-political consequences. But the potential of diversity would be useless were it not also restrained by some compensatory mechanism.

3. Man is both rational and social animal. Or rather, he must be rational in order to be sociable. Here rationality is being susceptible to and restrained by shared socially imposed concepts. Cultural constrains is one of such mechanism. Without cultural constrains, the plasticity would become malignant and excessive. It would unable to retain any advantages gained.
Gellner mentions two kinds of constrains in regulating social orders: cultural and coercive.

Men may obey the grammatical and cultural rules without needing much in the way of sanction. But when comes to the occupation, of position in economic and political hierarchy, the coercive power imposes.

In complex human civilization requires men to do very minutely circumscribed things and to do them in the light of sanctions that are not immediate present and operative. The process of civilization would not be possible unless men were capable both of fear and of an abstract alternative conceptualizing thought. They need a coercive action at a distance.

Coercion without meaning (cultural) is blind, meaning without coercion is feeble. Meaning on its own enforces cultural but not political conformity. The simultaneous presence of semantic and coercive techniques for imposing on behaviour order is reflected in the prominence, in insulation, of the specialist of legitimating and specialists of violence.

However, the nature of these two sets of skills is such that their deployment, or the training which leads to the acquisition of virtuoso status, are not easily combined. That may be the reason why these two categories constrain so frequently distinct and separate.

The modernization, especially the society’s respect to science, has changed the form of constrains. The society in general could tolerate a relative liberation of human plasticity. The cognitive and productive innovations are seen to be explosive.

Coercion has diminished in degree, at least in liberal societies but in area of distribution of resources, there are coercive enforcements still present. A unified and orderly open system of referential concepts replaced the traditional descriptive ones. Social controls now operate in part through such as nationalism, or the ardent identification with existing or a desired nation-state. It is also enforced by a centralized and pervasive state by the shared stake and promised of its continuous enhancement.

In conclusion, genetic under-programming must have been linked to the presence of a compensating system of cultural and coercive restriction. These cultural systems and coercive systems have complemented each other in diverse ways at different stages. The combine both social cultural transmission and institutional coercion make the social progress so rapidly.

Ethnicial groups and boundaries

Reading "The social organization of cultural difference" by Fredrik Barth

This article examines the following issues:

1. Ethnic groups are categories of ascription and identification by the actors within. have the characteristic of organizing interaction between people;
2. The different process that involve in generating and maintaining ethnic groups;
3. The internal constitution and history of separate groups to ethnic boundaries and maintenance.

Ethnic group defined: (Ideal type definition)

- largely biological self-perpetuating
- shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms;
- makes up a field of communication and interaction
- has a membership which identified itself, and is identified by others.

Ethnic groups as cultural-bearing units

That implies that classification of persons and local groups as members as an ethnic groups must depend on their exhibiting the particular traits of the culture. This is something that can be judged objectively by the ethnographic observe.

The overt cultural forms which can be itemized as traits exhibit the effects of ecology, which means that the external circumstances to which actors must accommodate themselves, and adaptive strategies an ethnic groups must be applied.

When facing different opportunities offered in different environments, the same ethnic groups, though with the same cultural values ideas, will pursue different patterns of life and institutionalize different forms of behaviors. Likewise, we expect to find that one ethnic group, spread over a territory with varying ecologic circumstances, will exhibit regional diversities of overt institutionalized behavior to reflect differences in cultural orientation.

How should they then be classified if overt institutional forms are different?

The example of Pathan local social system.

South Pathan is so different from North Pathan. But the closer examination found that under those circumstances South Pathan would have indeed acted the same with as their North Pathan groups.

It is thus inadequate to regard overt institutional forms as constituting the cultural features which at any time distinguish an ethnic group,these overt forms are determined by ecology as well as by transmitted culture.

There are well documented cases of one ethnic group, also at a relatively simple level of economic organization, occupying several different ecologic niches and retaining the basic cultural and ethnic unity over long period. (e.g. inland and coast Chuchchee; reindeer, river and coast Lappes)

Ethnic groups as an organizational type

In social effect, each ethnic group can be seen as a form of social organization, which is self ascription and ascription by others. The actors use ethnic identity to categorize themselves and others for purposes of interaction, in that sense, they form ethnic group as organization.

Here the individual level difference comes in place. Not only do ecological variations mark and cause differences, some cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences, others are ignored and in some relationships radical differences are played down and denied.

Noted that cultural contents of ethnic dichotomies include:

1. overt signals and signs
2. basic value and orientation

They may or may not have relevance to individual's behavior; Ethnic groups provide an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and forms of content in different socio-cultural system. The boundary of an ethnic group can be changed, the cultural characteristics of members may likewise be transformed. Socially related factors define membership of a group. It is fluid and not fixed.

The boundary of ethnic groups

The identification of another person as a fellow member of an ethnic group implies a sharing of criteria for evaluation and judgment. It entails the assumption that two are playing the same game; on the other hand, a dichotomization of others as strangers, as member of another ethnic groups, implies a recognition of limitations on shared understanding, differences in criteria for judgment of value and performance.

That involves the interaction with other ethnic groups. Ethnic group will persist if there are marked differences in behavior and persisting cultural differences.

Yet, the interactions of people from different ethnic groups require and generate a congruence of codes and values, in other words, a similarity or community of culture. Stable inter-ethnic relations presuppose a structuring of interaction: to allow the articulation of some sectors while insulate parts of the cultures from confrontation and modification.

Identity, in sociological term.

Identity is the relation between something and itself. In sociological term, identity is our understanding of who we are and of who other people are, and reciprocally, other peoples’ understanding of themselves and of others. Identity is the way that individual labels of oneself as member of particular groups, it speaks of the sense of belonging, about what you have in common with some people and what differentiates you from others. That gives you basic sense of personal location, the stable core to your individuality, it also related to your social relationships, your interaction with others. More often identity implies an other with which it contrast.

Identity can be expressed in explicit and implicit ways, can be organized in :

1). An explicit way, such as ethnicity, nationality etc, is often used to contrast other groups, example, Chinese people, in contrast with other ethnic groups; Christian, in contrast with other religions.

2). A implicit way, such as environmental or social entity, gender, descent groups etc.

3). Identity also can be thought of as purely personal as membership of something. For example, the citizenship is a key feature of modern national state identity. Membership is often the way in which ethnicity or class are thought of. E.g. religious organization, social class, cultural identity, work-class etc.

4). Identity also can be expressed in the way related to people’s bodies, such as make up, slimming or body building practices or the way we dress etc. The body linked identity is sometime conflicting between what we want to be and want we want to show.

The identities are not fix and always shifting depending on social contexts.

(What else?)......

The concern for identity was not an issue for most of history, in fact, the identity searching and identity crisis are issues related to modernity. The reason for the rise concern of identity is due to:

1). Modernity increase individualism, the concern of identity is form of express of individuality.

2). Capitalism requires constant capital accumulation and manipulation that reveals one’s true identity; it goes hand in hand in development of modern nation states. The state requires individuals to identity themselves with the nation. Citizenship requires people consistently conform with national image, eg Singapore government encourage people to identify themselves according to state image without cultural barriers.

3). Concern of one’s own career, self reflect who they are and what they want to do or to be. In modern society, people have to make conscious efforts to achieve one’s career goal.

4). Finally, globalization is also cause of many identity searching for many migrants. The new process of identity negotiation is ongoing.

Globalisation leads to cultural hybridity

Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of place; the world is becoming a global village. What happens in Middle East will have direct impacts on Singapore and other parts of world. The cultural referents used to construct our identities become less and less rotted in any one culture or nation alone, i.e. Identity, how we see ourselves, is affected by cultural influence of other places, that element may be part of our cultural components. Identity, under the impact of globalization is rather de-territorialized.

Formation of identities under globalization is influenced by:
1. The spread of global capitalism and consumerism
2. The advancements in technologies especially in communication and transportation.
3. The increasing migration, whereby individuals from different cultures some to interact more.

The cultural framework that shapes identities, under globalization therefore, is multiple. National boundaries of culture become blue.

Migrants often combine elements from different culture in order to construct culturally hybrid identities. The reasons behinds are complicated, but often, are out of necessity of being ethnical minority. They have to employ deliberate strategies to adopt other cultural environment, increasing their cultural capital in gain social acceptance and economic powers.

There are basic four types of cultural contact:

Assimilating: to adopt another culture. However, the total assimilation is rare and it may take many generations.

Differentiating: to asset one’s differences in relation to the other culture.
For example, Jian diamond traders HongKong, the unique professional and religious demand lead Jian diamond traders differentiating themselves.

Alternating: to use elements from both cultures by switching between them according to the situation.
e.g. Chinese migrants in Western countries celebrate Christmas, and celebrate Chinese New Year too.
e.g. Parsi traders, in relation to the British for business opportunity, switching back to Indian identity when facing limited mate selection.

Hybridizing: to combine elements from one culture with those of another to develop new cultural meaning.
e.g. Sassoon family, Bohra Muslim wear business suit without wool.

Globalization is not one way Westernization, but more likely to be a hybrid culture. Consumption on some culturally perceived western products are always under local context. Eg. McDonald, and movies.

Culture

Culture refers to the socially transmitted bases for behaviour that characterise the human species.

The cultures are the sum of total of ways of life that are cultivated by people in particular social frame works, providing a sense of social coherence and yet changing through time.

Culture includes language, art, also includes intangible aspects as values, norms, ideas, beliefs and symbols. Culture frameworks are transmitted by a verity of socio-political institutions and through the process of socialization and enculturation.

Edward Tylor. 1871 gave culture the following definition: “ that complex whole which including knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capacities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

Culture is open-ended, doesn’t have boundary and is socially transmitted.

The big Culture is the property of all humans, of human species, Homo sapiens. Without socially transmitted knowledge, individuals can not be part of society.

Evolutionists believe that human species share the certain common Culture as the result of evolutionary process, as it was seen in hominid evolution. For biological (evolutionary) reasons this means that all human populations much have come under the same strong selective pressure. To have remained a single species we have retained 99.9% genetic makeup in common, i.e. blueprint.

Culture is shared by all human beings regardless of all their other environmental differences. It is suggested that culture as the main reason for our continued existence as single species as the strong selective pressure.

That implies that despite of the differences in the content of local cultures, all cultures must be making essentially the same demands on us as human, i.e. it takes he same kind of brain and body to live by any of the world’s cultural traditions; All human must be predisposed genetically to require a cultural input if they are to act like human beings. Culture is therefore part of very biological constitutions. Therefore, though we experience the different kinds of cultural input for our daily living, we are all under Cultural influence as a human.

(I have to reinstate that those “so-called” scientific findings are yet to be proven)

Some evolutionists believe that human species were evolved from hominid line, the first major adaptation was the development of a distinctive foot- this indicates a regular shift to upright position when walking, along with associated changes o shape of he pelvic girdle, to which the legs were attached. Bipedalism (walking uprightly) enables hominid to be ground dwellers and to see longer distance. This also enhanced tool-using and tool-manufacturing, and ability to carry hunted food etc. This also led to a narrowing of the birth canal through pelvic girdle, at the same time, the size of brain was increasing through increasing requirement of inter-subjectivity- double guessing the mental life of others and manipulation of the world through tools.

These factors made childbirth more difficult and baby remains vulnerable and requires mother’s care.

As hominid evolution proceeded, the brain size increases, skull size increases too, that further makes childbirth difficult. The adaptive response for this was for the baby to born at earlier stage of development, so that its size would still allow it to be born. That means baby was born into a helpless state and dependent on others for the first few year of life.

The baby’s further development requires external programming i.e. Culture provided by people around him. That means that baby requires access to cultural input before it could organise its own actions. The neuronal connections that develop as the brain matures thus depend crucially on the child response to this cultural input.

Thus, biologically we are cultural creatures. It is however not specific cultural content that we are responding to so much as the necessity that cultural places on each one of us to choose and to construct our own behaviour. Although specific cultures differ in their content, they all make much the same demands on individual human beings. So evolution has shape by this demand, human beings therefore have remained a single species.

Theodor Adorno

Adorno (1903-69) argued that consumer culture(Mass culture)was created by capitalism fed people with the products of a 'culture industry' by creating false needs - the opposite of 'true' art - to keep them passively satisfied and politically apathetic.

Adorno saw that capitalism had not become more precarious or close to collapse, as Marx had predicted. Instead, it had seemingly become more entrenched. Where Marx had focussed on economics, Adorno placed emphasis on the role of culture in securing the status quo.

Popular culture was identified as the reason for people's passive satisfaction and lack of interest in overthrowing the capitalist system.

Adorno suggested that culture industries created a debased mass of unsophisticated, sentimental products which have replaced the more 'difficult' and critical art forms which might lead people to actually lost the creative mind.

False needs are cultivated in people by the culture industries. These are needs which can be both created and satisfied by the capitalist system, and which replace people's 'true' needs - freedom, full expression of human potential and creativity, genuine creative happiness.

Commodity fetishism (promoted by the marketing, advertising and media industries) means that social relations and cultural experiences are objectified in terms of money. We are delighted by something because of how much it cost.

Popular media and music products are characterised by standardisation (they are basically formulaic and similar) and pseudo-individualisation (incidental differences make them seem distinctive, but they're not).

Products of the culture industry may be emotional or apparently moving, but Adorno sees this as cathartic - we might seek some comfort in a sad film or song, have a bit of a cry, and then feel restored again.

One of most obvious modern-day application would be that television leads people away from talking to each other or questioning the oppression in their lives. Instead they get up and go to work (if they are employed), come home and switch on TV, absorb TV's nonsense until bedtime, and then the daily cycle starts again.

Postmodernity

Las Meninas (Maids of Honor)
1656-57 (120 Kb); Museo del Prado, Madrid
The Maids of Honour
(Detail: Infanta Margarita)
(Las Meninas
Detalle: la Infanta Margarita)
Painted around 1656-57.

Infanta Margarita, the centre-piece of Velazquez´s " Las Meninas " . Never has a painting of an individual of royalty been surrounded by so many activities and objects.
Everyone's attention is directed towards Margarita while she looks at her parents, the King and Queen of Spain who are posing for the painter .

You may wonder what this one of most famous Velazques's painting to do with "Post-modernity"?

It offers the visual confusion, for the first glance, one may think that Infanta Margrita was postured to be painting. A closer look reviews that the king and queen were in fact posing for painter. Then the second thought, how did the painter paint this scenario?

Pierre Bourdieu

reading 204 "cultural capitalism and symbolic violence"

by Randall Collins

“All pedagogic action is, objectively, symbolic violence insofar as it is the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power.”

Bourdieu unique sees culture as an arena of stratification and conflict. Culture is itself an economy, and is related to the material economy of goods and services. Stratification in the cultural economy and in the material economy is reciprocally related, both as cause and effect. Culture is a realm of power struggle, related to realms of politics.

This threefold theme shows that Bourdieu’s intellectual roots are in Max Weber.

The central concept “symbolic violence” defined as “ power which manages to impose meanings and to impose them as legitimate by concealing the power relations which are the basis of its force” Such power is very widespread, which makes up the content of formal schooling, childrearing, of public status display, or religion, and the communication media. Their legitimacy as cultural meanings by which people define the world and each other’s place in it, is based upon force. Often this force is hidden and necessarily so.

Bourdieu also assumes Durkheim’s analysis of education as civil religion, in which moral and intellectual categories are imposed as ever-present representatives of the force society. He claims that the society is based upon misrecognition. Durkheim had argued that society is held together by ritually created beliefs in its gods. In Bourdieu’s sense, this involves a fundamental misrecognition, since society creates the gods, but must hide this fact from itself because only by believing in the gods as objective can the belief be effective.

Levi-Strauss took Marcel Mauss’ proposition of exchange of gifts as the basis of the primitive economy in his Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949/1969) examines the various structures of tribal society from the political and economic alliances produced by gift exchanges of women. Bourdieu disagreed with him and argued that matrimonial exchange rules are officialising strategies imposed by ruling groups in practice to manoeuvring among families struggling for advantageous alliance. He thinks that the exchange culture in this misrecognized form is the basis of the reproduction of the entire society.

In modern society, schooling reproduces the distribution of cultural capital among social classes. The content of the dominant schooling is the culture that corresponds to the interests of the dominant classes. This constitutes cultural capital, the chief instruments of transforming power relations into legitimate authority, with double reproduction, both structural relations among the classes and particular families that constitute social classes pass along their advantages from generation to generation.

That is Habitus, the internalization of an arbitrary cultural standard, at first in the family, later in school. Once finishing schooling, individuals carry a fund of culture which gives them entrée to particular occupations and social circles. This movement of individuals through a system of cultural inculcation thus reconstitutes the structure of society. Culture reproduces the entire structure of society, including its material economy.

Bourdieu believes that symbolic capital is always credits, wealth, he ultimate basis of power can exert power, and exert it durably, only in the form of symbolic capital. Differed from Marx on capital accumulation, he thinks the accumulation of cultural capital is the key leads to class diversion. Education system unifies all cultural capital into a single market, and guarantee convertibility of cultural capital into money at a determinate and objectively fixed rate.

The Nature of a soul

It is of no argument regarding the superior state of human being. Some use “evolution theory” contribute it because human being is at climax of millions of millions years of evolution process, others suggest that “creation science” give far better and convincing explanation on men’s superiority.

Please be reminded, neither evolution theory nor creation science are universally accepted and regarded as “The Law of Nature”. Scholars from both camps often rely on the same empirical evidences on anthropological, archaeological discoveries and historical records. There have been intensive debates about which view is of the truth. One thing is agreed that both explanations require “faith” to believe or "faith" to disbelieve. Faith is a bridge from known and unknown world.

Hebrew 11:1"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, to believe the things one do not see. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Oxford dictionary defines
Science as " the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world and society, especially through observation and experiment."

(for more detailed creationism view on rebuttal "evolution theory", see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html)

Weber said the teacher duty’s was to provide “facts” sometimes “inconvenient facts” to students, not to misuse the lecture as pulpit to preach his/her own conviction. It is often difficult to accept something against one’s conviction. However, the true scientific and scholar attitude is to be open-minded and ready to accept anything based on truth with honest intellectual integrity.

The development of science has led men to have far better understanding to our universe and to human ourselves, yet,there are still many areas remain unsolved and unexplained.

“Seek the truth and truth shalt set you free.”

In creation point of view, man is the very highest point of creature God had made. It is recorded in Holy Bible that God made heaven and earth and all creatures on the earth. Human beings were made especially in God’s image and “The lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

That’s perhaps the most powerful reason why human beings are superior to others creatures.

As evolutionist think brain is the organ to perform human highest capacity through chemical processes, creationist believe that it is in fact the soul that is the organ of rational thought, the seat of a person’s emotions and will. There are at least five faculties of the soul, according to Peter Masters:

1. The soul is the mind or the reason, which enables people to know, thing and imagine; to understand moral precepts, to weight pros and cons of any situation, and to plan
2. The soul is the will, by which all choices are exercised and implemented and a person determines to act in any given way, the will is the executive arm of the soul.
3. The soul is the emotional part, the affections or the feelings, the capacity of happiness, delight, sorrow, compassion and love
4. The soul is consciousness, a resident magistrate within. The conscience works in the mind to stir moral awareness and to accuse or excuse all that is done. The mind is stamped with the moral law of God, having an intuition to know right and wrong and the conscience stands alongside the mind, much as police and magistrates monitor the behavior of society.

The conscience can be tramped down and rendered insensible by human determination to sin, it is not therefore infallible, and if willfully reprogrammed will become a perverted and deceiving conscience. However even the most hideous criminal has the moment of piecing of his conscience.
5. The soul is spirit. It is highest faculty which enables people to fulfill the glorious purpose of their creation- to know their creator and have spiritual communication with God. Sadly to say, not all men’s spirit is quickening. Just like some have brain but never use it, some have soul but never pray.

Because of the wonderful creation, man is seen to be created in God’s image and likeness of God. God is spirit, man can only assemble God in term of his soul and all its capabilities, namely the power of reason, the power of decision, sophisticated emotions, moral consciousness, and potential for spiritual interaction with God.

It will be hard to comprehend how sociologists would have any meaningful understanding of human beings and their society,if they don't adapt a broad, open-mindedness view towards other explanations.

The research finding is yet less important, but one’s soul is far more precious.

What is culture? and why human being uniquely requires culture?

Culture (from the Latin culture stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate,") generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity.

Why do Human beings uniquely requires Culture?

"We speak the wisdom of this world, not of the princes of this world, that come to nought, but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory." 1 Corinthians 2:6-7

Where did human being come from?

"All things bright and beautiful;
All creatures big and small
All things wise and wonderful;
The Lord God made them all."

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."
"God said, Let us make men in our image, after our likeness."
"So God created he him; male and female created he them."

Simply yet miraculously, it was done just as what God commended that man was made of God's image. That explains the uniqueness of human beings. Culture, if defined as "human nature" certainly exists in all human beings. Despite of diversified culture in different region, there is common Culture that unifies human beings for God's glory.

The tragedy of today's world is that men have forsaken their creator,instead they have made themselves gods.


The following is taken from:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857660.html

The Nature of Culture

Culture is based on the uniquely human capacity to classify experiences, encode such classifications symbolically, and teach such abstractions to others. It is usually acquired through enculturation, the process through which an older generation induces and compels a younger generation to reproduce the established lifestyle; consequently, culture is embedded in a person's way of life.

Culture is difficult to quantify, because it frequently exists at an unconscious level, or at least tends to be so pervasive that it escapes everyday thought. This is one reason that anthropologists tend to be skeptical of theorists who attempt to study their own culture. Anthropologists employ fieldwork and comparative, or cross-cultural, methods to study various cultures.

Theories of Culture

Investigations have arisen from belief in many different theories of culture and have often given voice to new theoretical bases for approaching the elusive term. Many early anthropologists conceived of culture as a collection of traits and studied the diffusion, or spread, of these traits from one society to another.

Critics of diffusionism, however, pointed out that the theory failed to explain why certain traits spread and others do not.

Cultural evolution theory holds that traits have a certain meaning in the context of evolutionary stages, and they look for relationships between material culture and social institutions and beliefs. These theorists classify cultures according to their relative degree of social complexity and employ several economic distinctions (foraging, hunting, farming, and industrial societies) or political distinctions (autonomous villages, chiefdoms, and states).

Critics of this theory argue that the use of evolution as an explanatory metaphor is flawed, because it tends to assume a certain direction of development, with an implicit apex at modern, industrial society.

Ecological approaches explain the different ways that people live around the world not in terms of their degree of evolution but rather as distinct adaptations to the variety of environments in which they live. They also demonstrate how ecological factors may lead to cultural change, such as the development of technological means to harness the environment.

Structural-functionalists posit society as an integration of institutions (such as family and government), defining culture as a system of normative beliefs that reinforces social institutions. Some criticize this view, which suggests that societies are naturally stable (see functionalism).

Historical-particularists look upon each culture as a unique result of its own historical processes.

Symbolic anthropology looks at how people's mental constructs guide their lives.
Structuralists analyze the relationships among cultural constructs of different societies, deriving universal mental patterns and processes from the abstract models of these relationships. They theorize that such patterns exist independent of, and often at odds with, practical behavior. Many theories of culture have been criticized for assuming, intentionally or otherwise, that all people in any one society experience their culture in the same way.

Today, many anthropologists view social order as a fragile accomplishment that various members of a society work at explaining, enforcing, exploiting, or resisting. They have turned away from the notion of elusive “laws” of culture that often characterizes cross-cultural analyses to the study of the concrete historical, political, and economic forces that structure the relations among cultures. Important theorists on culture have included Franz Boas, Emile Durkheim, Ruth Benedict, and Clifford Geertz.

Introduction of Culture vs culture

Edward Tylor (1871) defined "culture" as "The complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customer and others. It is capability and habits acquired by man as a member of society."

The classic characteristics of culture:
1. Open endedness

Culture is not fixed, has mess make up by thread and pitches; can be added or dropped.

2. Lack of boundary

Though there are cultural difference in different ethnicity, culture should not be confused with ethnicity. Culture can be acquired through learning, observing. Culture is different from community or society.

3. Social transmission

Culture is not transmitted by birth or genetic make up. (racism or stereotyping often believe so). Human beings have capacity to acquire Culture, when responding to difference environment, it ends up developing different and diversified cultures.

4. Capability and habits

Culture can be divided into two levels:
1) in focus level, when people are aware of such culture and can easily put to description.
2) out focus level, when people subconsciously do aware of but it hard to put into words, or require some conscious efforts to do so.

Most of cultures, we discuss here, are embedded in subconscious level, which is out focus level. In other words, culture can be existed in concept or notion.

The process of making culture to be habits is a process of hegemony.

Culture with a capital C=human nature

Culture is the property of all human being, and hence of the human species. Homo sapiens. Yet, human beings are not only creatures who have culture, social transmitted behaviors are also found in other animals.

However, what unique for human beings is human beings require Culture to functional properly. Culture is required for human being's personal and social development.
eg. baby in extremely exclusive environment may turn up to be dysfunctional, unsocialized, absent of basic social skills.

Each human being has Culture, in other words, human nature.

The evolutionary biology of Culture.

1). We belong to the same species,
The genetic component by and large the same.
The selective pressure, selection of genes in order to adapt changing environment.
That selective pressure is Culture.

2). Culture as our ecological niche, must be the main reason for human being to remain single species.

a. Despite of different of local culture, all human being require the same demand of living condition, the same demand of social interaction.
b. All human beings have genetic predisposition required, cultural and environmental inputs.

3). Human Evolution and Culture

Assuming, human being is evolved from Apes. There are three points suggested that human beings are Cultural required beings.

a. the development of foot in Apes enables it to walk up right, therefore it will have better vision, and better chance to survive.
b. The up walking position leads the new born babies to be born in a less advanced developed state comparing to other animals eg horse. That decides the newborn baby is dependent to mother for the first few years.
c. The nerve system follows to develop up. The more complex communications among members of tribe Apes further stimulates brain's development.

Biologically, human beings are Cultural creature, but individuals are required to make choose to respond the environment.

while I understand Evolution Theory offers some theoretic framework to explain why human being is unique cultural creature, I don't accept it as the truth. I will offer the alternative explanation right after this