Revision as of 23:10, 3 February 2009 editAlotToLearn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users515 edits Substantial edit of article to reduce length and add breadth← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:44, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,062,783 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
(432 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1date=20:39, 9 July 2006 |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|
| action1date = 00:39, 9 July 2006 |
|
|action1oldid=62932639 |
|
|
|
| action1result = Listed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 62512522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAR |
|
| action2 = GAR |
|
|action2date=July 16, 2008 |
|
| action2date = 06:52, 17 July 2008 |
|
|action2link=Talk:Culture#GA Sweeps Review: Pass |
|
| action2link = Talk:Culture/Archive 5#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold |
|
|action2result=Kept |
|
| action2result = Kept |
|
|action2oldid=226190225 |
|
| action2oldid = 226190225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
|
| action3 = GAR |
|
|action3date=January 24, 2009 |
|
| action3date = 07:20, 24 January 2009 |
|
|action3link=Talk:Culture#Result of GAR - why article has been delisted |
|
| action3link = Talk:Culture/GA1 |
|
|action3result=delisted |
|
| action3result = Delisted |
|
|action3oldid=266074008 |
|
| action3oldid = 271342611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=top}} |
|
|1={{BT list coverage|culture}} |
|
|
|2={{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} |
|
<!--Class altered by AlotToLearn after GAR on 24 January 2009--> |
|
|
|3={{WPAnthro|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}} |
|
<!--Class altered by AlotToLearn after GAR on 24 January 2009--> |
|
|
|={{WikiProject Human rights|importance=high|class=C}} |
|
|
<!--Class altered by AlotToLearn after GAR on 24 January 2009--> |
|
|
|5={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|category=Socsci|core=yes|VA=yes}} |
|
|
|6={{Vital|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Backwards copy |
|
]; ]; ]; ] |
|
|
|
| author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. |
|
|
|
|
|
| year = 2010 |
|
==GA Sweeps Review: On Hold== |
|
|
|
| title = The Clash of Civilizations: Culture, religion, Samuel P. Huntington, conflict, dialogue among civilizations, civilizing mission, cultural relativism, Jacob Burckhardt |
|
As part of the ], we're doing ] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the ]. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a ]. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at ]. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them. |
|
|
|
| org = Alphascript Publishing |
|
|
|
|
|
| comments = {{OCLC|662607046}}, {{ISBN|9786130203375}}. |
|
Needs inline citations: |
|
|
|
| bot = LivingBot |
|
#"Attentive to the theory of evolution, they assumed that all human beings evolved equally, and that the fact that all humans have cultures must in some way result from human evolution." {{done}} by linking to ], who is well known for holding this attitude. --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
#"According to evolutionary psychologists, the diversity of forms that human cultures take are constrained (indeed, made possible) by innate information processing mechanisms underlying our behavior" {{done}} removed entirely; replace w appropriate ciations --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
#"In order to fully understand culture we must understand its biological conditions of possibility." {{done}} gone --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
#"In dealing with immigrant groups and their cultures, there are essentially four approaches:" {{done}}; replaced "essentially four" with "various". Each term below links to an article that is supported with citations, so I left those alone. |
|
|
|
| algo=old(365d) |
|
#"In any case, most of Polynesia is now strongly Christian." {{done}}; though this is undoubtedly the case, this was removed in my earlier round of edits --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Culture/Archive %(counter)d |
|
#"Dominant influences include ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and Christianity, although religion has declined in Europe." {{done}}; rmv in earlier edits --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| counter=7 |
|
#"The Middle East generally has three dominant and clear cultures, Arabic, Persian and Turkish, which have influenced each other with varying degrees during different times." {{done}}; rmv in earlier edits --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
#"Christianity was the dominant feature in shaping European and the New World cultures for at least the last 500 to 1700 years." {{done}}; replaced w "Christianity has been important to European and New World cultures for at least the last 500 to 1,700 years." --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
#"Islam's influence has dominated much of the North African, Middle and Far East regions for almost 1500 years, sometimes mixed with other religions." {{done}}; replaced with "Islam has had influence..." --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
#"This concept is mirrored in other cultures, such as in the case of the Great Australian Dream, although this refers more closely to home ownership by the same means." {{done}} deleted --] (]) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1}} |
|
#"Most, however, reject the identification of culture with consumption goods. Furthermore, many now reject the notion of culture as bounded, and consequently reject the notion of subculture. Instead, they see culture as a complex web of shifting patterns that link people in different locales and that link social formations of different scales." {{done}} deleted, though I think it's generally correct; replace with citations --] (]) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"Currently, a debate is underway regarding whether or not culture can actually change fundamental human cognition. Researchers are divided on the question." {{done}} gone --] (]) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"For example, the end of the last ice age helped lead to the invention of agriculture, which in its turn brought about many cultural innovations and shifts in social dynamics." {{done}} gone --] (]) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#""Stimulus diffusion" (the sharing of ideas) refers to an element of one culture leading to an invention or propagation in another. "Direct Borrowing" on the other hand tends to refer to technological or tangible diffusion from one culture to another" {{done}}, the citation above discusses this as well, so I made that clearer --] (]) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"Sociologists and anthropologists believe that a holistic approach to the study of cultures and their environments is needed to understand all of the various aspects of change. Human existence may best be looked at as a "multifaceted whole."" {{done}}; deleted--] (]) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Other issues: |
|
|
#I usually have to tell editors to expand the lead, but for this article it needs to be condensed down. It's currently at 10 paragraphs and at most it should be four. Merge some together and take out some of the information that doesn't summarize the information within the article itself. If some of the information is only mentioned in the intro, insert it into the text of the article. See ] for guidelines. ({{done}}, assuming no one objects to my attempt at surgery here --] (]) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
#Although it's great that there are all free images being used in the article, is it possible to include some images that aren't paintings? I'm sure for the topic of the article there are some related photographs of culture in progress that can be added. {{done}}; I don't deal w images much, so I hope I didn't mess this up. Nonetheless, please find some photos in appropriate spots. --] (]) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"See Stephen Wolfram's A new kind of science on iterated simple algorithms from genetic unfolding, from which the concept of culture as an operating mechanism in can be developed on Friday," What does developed on Friday mean? ({{done}}; deleted this--poorly written, seemed tacked on --] (]) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"Many regional cultures have been influenced by contact with others, such as by colonization, trade, migration, mass media and religion." Single sentence shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on the infomration present or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences within the article. ({{done}}; this section had no references and a problematic use of the culture concept; unnecessary with subarticle --] (]) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#"...and the immigration of Europeans, especially Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, German, Irish, Italian and Dutch." Wikilinks should be provided for these ethnic groups. ({{done}} --] (]) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
#"Eurocentric custom to some extent divides humanity into Western and non-Western cultures, although this has some flaws." What flaws are being referred to here? Does "Western culture" right below it have flaws also? {{done}}; not entirely sure what this means; deleting --] (]) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --] (]) 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Since some of the issues were addressed, I will leave the article on hold for another week for the issues to be addressed. Please let me know if you finish before then, and I'll re-review it sooner. Happy editing! --] (]) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===GA Sweeps Review: Pass=== |
|
|
I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a ]. Good job on addressing the issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --] (]) 06:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== attack of the deletionist! == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am shocked to see that a deletionist swept through and removed EVERYTHING that was lacking citations. Obviously the deletionist is not familiar with the content, and therefore could not help improve the article, but was arrogant enough to say "I'm sure this is correct, but it is not cited and therefore must go." It truly makes me angry...how can Misplaced Pages be improved if the lacking parts are simply removed instead of improved upon? To me, to remove enormous parts simply to keep it from being unsourced is a gross misinterpretation of Misplaced Pages's intent. This is the ever-growing encyclopedia that is supposed to be held up to standards; deleting huge parts of articles does not make the article better, it makes it worse! The citations request tag is for this very purpose. Somebody would have come along and added them. I restored the bit I wrote. Quickly, everybody restore what you wrote and grab what resources you can before this jerk comes back and ruins the article more. This was a good article...let's put it back that way.] (]) 07:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, first of all, I was trimming a LOT of assertions that were unsourced, unclear or just wrong in order to keep this article listed as a good article. You may wish to refer to the discussion directly above that has been going on for the better part of a month. Secondly, you have to source your contributions if you don't want them deleted. That is your job, not anyone else's. Finally, ]. --] (]) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::First of all, I'm a long-time contributor to Misplaced Pages and I know the rules. I have made many valuable contributions to articles and they ARE sourced. Note what I wrote above: "everybody restore what you wrote and grab what resources you can." I thought it was pretty clear I was suggesting that ''everybody throw'' in with ''sourced'' contributions. Do not accuse me of asking anyone else to add sources for me. Secondly, I admit my tone may have been confrontational, but WP:CIVIL does not prevent one from being angry. I don't like the way the "sweeps" are conducted; that is my opinion. But clearly we are all interested in improving the article: assume good faith on my part and don't accuse me of asking others to do my dirty work. Note the changes I made to the article; I didn't just leave a comment here and do nothing to help. For the record, that unsourced sentence I restored, which you removed, as mentioned in the discussion above (see, I did read it) due to being unsourced, was not one I added. You removed all of my content around it, but I added it all back and even found a source. In other words, I did someone else's job for them. No thanks are necessary.] (]) 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You both seem to have the best interests of this article in mind. Newsroom hierarchies has done yeoman work in responding to the observations of the GA reviewer. Many of those sections he removed had had "citation needed" tags on them for some time. Given the GA review, we needed to either source them or get off the pot (so to speak). In any case, the article passed the GA Sweeps Review, in no small measure due to the work of Nh. Many thanks! ] (]) 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And, of course, the "deleted" material still resides intact in the article's page history, where it can be replaced at editors' leisure with the proper sources. --] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@Elle--as far as rules go, you can't stroll in after all of the sweeps work was done by someone other than you, call the person who did that work a "deletionist" and a "jerk" and then play the ] card. I mean, you ''can'', but it runs afoul of some pretty basic norms in Misplaced Pages-culture (or any culture, really). I'll probably leave our exchange at that, but I'm a little disappointed at being spoken to in this way. --] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Deletion of sentence from subtopic Abrahamic religions == |
|
|
I have deleted the following sentence which appeared right at the e3nd of the subtopic Abrahamic religions, because it is nothing to do with that subtopic. I have not moved it to another location in the article because I am not exactly sure what the writer was trying to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
"The mainstream ] view of ‘culture’ implies that most people experience a strong resistance when reminded that there is an animal as well as a spiritual aspect to human nature.<ref name="AnthropologyTodayApr07">Jonathan Benthall '''' ''Anthropology Today'' Volume 23 Issue 2 Page 1 - April 2007</ref>" |
|
|
--] (]) 06:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Talk:Culture/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== My changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I could not agree more with the various criticisms, above. This article has become a mess - too many cooks. I think some of the suggestions are well-intentioned but unconstructive, but they all highlight real problems. I have made some changes. The most major was simply deleting the material on different religions and countries - for one thing, very few social scientists and practically no anthropologist uses the word "culture" so crudely to conform to political boundaries. And most of that material just belongs in other articles, indeed, is already in other articles. I tried to keep the focus on what the word culture means and how it is used. This is hard because it means many things and the meaning has changed over time, so i have tried to highlight the major people/groups/academic disciplines that make "culture" a central concept for themselves, I hope people consider this reasonable! I have done what I could to eliminate redundancies and sort out contradictions. ] | ] 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can add references in the next few weeks. As for the ''concept'' of culture, I did not cut anything about the concept of culture, or theories of culture, from other countries. They were not there before I made cuts. What I did do was add ''more'' information to what was already there about the concept of culture. There was inadequate coverage of Germany and I added, there. The article pre-revision also had a lot of material drawing on UK and US sources, but without attribution or explanation and jumbled up - I sorted it out, so the differences and relationship between US and UK anthropology is clearer ... but that information was in the earlier version, it just was not explained clearly. You say "surely the topic must have been thought about and studied in other parts of the world" ... well, the version as of earlier today did not provide any information about that, and I have no information about that. One may argue that Ibn Khaldoun anticipated some issues that would later become part of th modern conception of culture. The earlier version didn't say that, and I don't know of any reliable secondary sources on it, so I didn't add that new information; if you have good reliable sources on this let us know! Please tell me what aspects of culture are not covered? I am sure we can add them in if they come from significant views from reliable sources, but can you explain what they are? As for restoring the older version, well, let's see what others think. I am sure that what I just did can be improved upon (I didn't change the section on culture change and it is still a mess) but the version as of earlier today was a disaster. It repeated many things over and over; it had contradictory statements; it had a great deal of material that is and ought to be covered in other articles; it made no distinction between different points of view at all, and mixed up mainstream and minority views. I think that the previous version was a real embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. I consider my revision a minimal salvage attempt by (1) deleting fringe views and original research and (2) deleting repetitions and (3) distinguishing between different points of view in what remained. ] | ] 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===General To Do List=== |
|
|
There are a few things I did not have time to do that definitely need work (this was true pre-revision as well); |
|
|
* bring the material on anthropological views of culture up-to-date, specifically culture as performance, and culture as a field of conflict and contestation. (e.g. starting with Sherry Ortner's ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' essay from the 1980s, and more recent debates among anthropologists about "culture." Ira Bashkow's 2004 "A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries" in American Anthropologist 106(3): 443-458 is another important resource. |
|
|
* "culture" is a key concept in anthropology and cultural studies, but more can be said about its changing meanings in cultural studies |
|
|
* the ''difference'' between "society" and "culture" - as concepts and as research agendas/sets of questions - needs to be spelled out. Among other things, while societies are usually bounded, cultures are not |
|
|
* ditto "culture" and "ethnic identity?" |
|
|
* I didn't make any changes to the section on "culture change" yet "culture" was classically conceived of as something dynamic and changing. I am not even sure it deserves its own section. And "acculturation" was considered an out-of-date and really refuted concept by the 1950s. |
|
|
* sections on how cultural historians and cultural geographers look at culture. How are their definitions, approaches, and questions different from anthropology and cultural studies? Are there overarching threads? |
|
|
|
|
|
I know there are many other ways this can be improved on, these are just a few obvious to me i didn't have time to get to. ] | ] 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===To Do: Cultural Geography=== |
|
|
Just received a message re: the inclusion of ] within this article (which itself could do with some work). To be honest, cultural geography is as ill-defined as cultural studies, and can range from the marxist work on cultural production, exchange, cultural captial etc. to how various spaces are represented in cultural works (e.g: Bladerunner and the representation of LA seems to be a favourite) to studies of local, regional and global variation and cultural change. Bear in mind that cultural geography has only really existed since the late 80s, and so invariably draws mostly from anthropological, sociological and cultural studies approaches that came before - so there's not much to add, as many of the major trends noted in the piece here are relevant for cultural geography. |
|
|
|
|
|
If there's one thing which the piece could do with is the spatial side of things that cultural geography deals with. For example, the last section on cultural exchange would be a very good place to add the examples of ] and related cultural homogenization or imperialism (c.f.]) as well the flip side of the possibility of the internet providing for cultural deviation. There are two of the main 'spatial' issues for cultural studies at present which link well to other good wiki pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
So; either I can add a short blurb about cultural geography if that's needed - though maybe just a brief mention and a link near the end of the cultural studies section would be better, given its marginal status. And I'll work on the globalisation/cultural issue if I have time - but if there's anyone reading this with a better grasp of that, please go ahead. It's not quite my main field. --] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think ''all'' of these are good suggestions and hope you will make a start of a new section on the theme. Hopefully you can draw in others who know more about cultural geography then to develop it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:For what it is worth, anthropologists have also been concerned with culture's spatial dimension. Franz Boas and many of his students were interested in the "diffusion" of culture i.e. the movement of cultural traits, and archeologists have studied the spatial distribution of traits. More recently, a few works focus on the spatial dimensions of culture: |
|
|
:*Appadurai, Arjun 1986 ''The Social Life of Things''. (Edited) New York: Cambridge University Press. |
|
|
:* Appadurai, Arjun 1996 ''Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. |
|
|
:* Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson 1992 "Beyond 'Culture': Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference," in ''Cultural Anthropology'' 1(7). |
|
|
:* Marcus, George E. 1995 “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” In ''Annual Review of Anthropology'' 24: 95-117. |
|
|
:* Thomas, Nicholas 1991 ''Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific.'' Cambridge: Harvard University Press. |
|
|
:*Wolf, Eric 1982 ''Europe and the People Without History''. Berkeley: The University of California Press. |
|
|
:Unfortunately, I do not have my library at hand and do not have these works ... I hope someone else who has them handy could build this article incorporating these works - I know they are all considered mainstream and significant within cultural anthropology. ] | ] 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== To Do: Culture and language === |
|
|
|
|
|
Another editor ] to contribute a section on Culture and Language. I am afraid I will not have time to do so in the foreseeable future. Instead, I offer a few quotes and references around which others might wish to get started on such a section. |
|
|
:"Of all aspects of culture, it is a fair guess that language was the first to receive a highly developed form and that its essential perfection is a prerequisite to the development of culture as a whole" (Sapir 1995: 43) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Language is a great force in socialization, probably the greatest that exists. By this is meant not merely the obvious fact that significant social intercourse is hardly possible without language but that the mere fact of a common speech serves as a peculiarly potent symbol of the social solidarity of those who speak the language" (Sapir 1995: 50) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"It does not follow, however, that there is a simple correspondence between the form of a language and the form of the culture of those who speak it. ... There is no general correspondence between cultural type and linguistic structure" (Sapir 1995: 59). Sapir is, I think, responding to deterministic theories in 19th & early 20th century social science. Compare Boas : "If it were true that anatomical form, language, and culture are all closely associated, and that each subdivision of mankind is characterized by a certain bodily form, a certain culture, and a certain language, which can never become separated, we might expect that the results of the various investigations would show better agreement. If, on the other hand, the various phenomena which were made the leading points in the attempt at classification are not closely associated, then we may naturally expect such contradictions and lack of agreement as are actually found" (Boas 1995: 11) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"For the notion of culture as learned patterns of behavior and interpretive practices, language is crucial because it provides the most complex system of classification of experience" (Duranti 1997: 49). |
|
|
|
|
|
:"So much of our social life is conducted, mediated, and evaluated through linguistic communication that it should be no surprise that social scientists such as Levi-Strauss used concepts developed in linguistics as tools for the study of culture. Language also provides a useful link between inner thought and public behavior. Even when we articulate our thoughts in our own mind we are only partly doing something 'private.' We are also relying on a set of cultural resources (including categorizations, theories, and problem-solving strategies) that probably belong not only to us but to a community" (Duranti 1997: 49). |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Finally, the view of language as a set of practices emphasizes the need to see linguistic communication as only a part of a complex network of semiotic resources that carry us throughout life and link us to particular social histories and their supporting institutions" (Duranti 1997: 49). |
|
|
|
|
|
:" have seen that the primary concern of caregivers is to ensure that their children are able to display and understand behaviors appropriate to social situations. A major means by which this is accomplished is through language. Therefore, we must examine the language of caregivers primarily for its socializing functions, rather than only its strict grammatical input function. Further, we must examine the prelinguistic and linguistic behaviors of children to determine the ways they are continually and selectively affected by values and beliefs held by those members of society who interact with them" (Ochs & Schieffelin 2001: 263). |
|
|
|
|
|
:" are continuously produced, reproduced, and revised in dialogues among their members. Cultural events are not the sum of the actions of their individual participants, each of whom imperfectly expresses a pre-existent pattern, but are the scenes where shared culture emerges from interaction" (Mannheim & Tedlock 1995: 2). |
|
|
|
|
|
*Boas, Franz. 1995 . "Introduction to the ''Handbook of American Indian Languages''." In B. Blount (ed) ''Language, Culture, and Society'' pp. 9-28. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. |
|
|
*Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. ''Linguistic Anthropology''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
|
|
*Mannheim, Bruce & Dennis Tedlock. 1995. "Introduction." In D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (eds) ''The Dialogic Emergence of Culture'' pp. 1-32. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. |
|
|
*Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin. 2001 . "Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three Developmental Stories." In A. Duranti (ed) ''Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader'' pp. 263-301. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (from ''Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion'', R.A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine eds.) |
|
|
*Sapir, Edward. 1995 . "Language." In B. Blount (ed) ''Language, Culture, and Society'' pp. 43-63. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. (from ''Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences'', E. Seligman ed.) |
|
|
] (]) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== To Do: Archeology and material culture === |
|
|
|
|
|
I just expanded the sections on structural functionalism and on symbolic anthropology and materialism. I know that at the moment it reads like just more history of anthropology but I hope that the section on mind vs. matter can be expanded by others to make clear how these really do lead to very different understandings of "culture." |
|
|
|
|
|
I also felt this was important background to understand the clash between "new archeology" (largely American) and "post-processual archeology" (largely British). The article does not yet have a section on how archeologists view and study culture, but we need some such section. I would think that key reliable and notable sources for such a section would be: |
|
|
*Charles Redman 1991 "Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: In Defense of the Seventies" in ''American Archeologist'' 93: 295-307 |
|
|
* Bruce Trigger 1991 "Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Constraint and Freedom - A New Synthesis for Archeological Explanation" ''American Anthropologist'' 93: 551-569 |
|
|
*Elizabeth Brumfiel 1992 "Distinguished Lecture on Archeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem - Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show" in ''American Anthropologist'' 94: 551-567 |
|
|
*George Cowgill 1993 "Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Beyond Criticizing New Archeology" in ''American Anthropologist'' 95: 551-573 |
|
|
Archeology, whether located in the sciences or humanities, has long played a crucial role in the study of "culture." What archeologists mean by culture and how thy look at it should have an important place in this article. But I am not an archeologist and not fluent enough in archeology to write the section, I hope other Wikipedians are. ] | ] 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===To Do: Organizational Culture=== |
|
|
I think the article provides a very good summary of the history of the concept. The greatest weakness is that it jumps too quickly onto the historical discourses. I would prefer to see some kind of an expanded summarizing introduction before the article goes into the details. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the uses of the concept in business research like "organizational culture", "safety culture" and so on, should also be mentioned, and also that those and other modern understandings of the word could be linked to their historical origins. Normally it could be regarded as equal to "values and attitudes" in these contexts, and it is often seen as some kind of indepenent factor. Though I think these understandings are trivial, they should be mentioned and their origins discusssed, and also be contrasted to other ways of understanding it. I agree with slrubenstein that one should focus on the scolarly accepted concepts of culture in the core disciplines, but one should also have some kind of discussions of its "simplified" uses in related fields. A good reason for this is that many students from eg organization studies may be likely to go to[REDACTED] to look for different definitions and ways of understanding the concept. I think this could be summarized in a sentence or two in the intro. |
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I am very fond of Bradd Shores book "Culture in Mind", and I think that the view he presents there represents a quite common understanding of culture today (quite similar to e.g. Ed Hutchins) where the tight interaction between culture (as external symbols) and culture (as cultured cognition) is stressed. I think this is more or less in line with others like Lakoff and Johnson, Bateson as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the historical part of the article should also include something about structuralism, for example Levi-Strauss' view on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just som thoughts from the top of my head. I'll try to follow up with some more concrete ideas when I have more WP-time. |
|
|
] (]) 12:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks Pertn. I thought of putting in material on Levi-Strauss, but frankly, I do not think his view of culture as such diverges enough from those in here to warrant it - his main contribution was to the nature of the anthropological project and the value of studying cultural difference, not culture as such ... if we added him, then the article really would be too much like a history of anthropology. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I do not have Lakoff and Johnson's book on hand but would welcome anyone adding content from that book as long as it were properly contextualized. (Ditto Brad Shore's book, which I do not know - it just has to be contextualized) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ditto "organizational culture" - I know that the term is popular in business schools etc. The thing is, I do not know where they get their concept of culture from. I am all for adding it ... but it has to be properly contextualized. I read Binford and saw that he cited White and Steward so it was not OR to claim that his view of culture was influenced by theirs. I can guess who influenced the organizational people, but so as not to violate NPOV or NOR, and to be "encyclopedic," I think we need to know who first introduced the idea "organizational culture" and how and when the term first entered the study of management or organizational psychology, and where the pioneers of "culture" in management and org. psych. got ''their'' ideas of culture from. Does anyone know? Does anyone have citations? If so this could become a strong part of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, the introduction should introduce the article as a whole. My view is that the article as a whole still needs real development - we need an expanded section on cultural studies and perhaps cultural history and cultural geography, academic disciplines I know little about. As you say, a section on the use of the culture concept in organizational psychology and/or management. I am for putting off further work on the introduction until these sections have been developed. In other words, yes I ''agree'' the introduction needs work. But since the introduction has to introduce the body, we need to develop the body more ''first'', and then we will know how best to develop the introduction.. ] | ] 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The recent changes are a step in the right direction == |
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I think Slrubenstein's changes are exactly the way to go for this article. Top-level articles like this one tend to become a cluttered pile of unfocused paragraphs and trivia if they are not rigorously edited once in a while by knowledgeable editors. Comparing versions before and after Slrubenstein's editing job, I think we now have an article that's in way better shape than it ever was. — ] ] 09:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I pretty much agree, but see my comments below. --] (]) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== My two cents == |
|
|
Slrubenstein suggested that I take a look at this article, so here I am. I started going through it from the beginning, making edits. But I soon realized that it would be a mammoth task. I really don't feel qualified to judge the article's current quality, since "quality" in this case largely means "comprehensiveness", and I'm not familiar with all the major developments in cultural anthropology, sociology, etc. As far as quality goes, I will simply say that the article looks systematic and organized. By the way, I tend to be a fan of articles with many headings and subheadings: breaking an article up in this way helps a reader keep track of where he is. So I applaud that aspect of this article. Also, I (for the most part) like the way that the article provides a chronological/historical perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are a few concerns I have after skimming the article: |
|
|
* There's a general lack of citations. As always, common sense should trump slavish adherence to the letter of Misplaced Pages policy; but I remind everyone that every substantive statement (e.g. "So-and-so did X") needs an endnote. I tried to add a few citations, but they seem insufficient. |
|
|
* As I said, I like the way the article currently traces historical developments. However, as the intro notes and the body of the article repeatedly affirms, there are at least 2 distinct meanings of "culture" — (1) personal cultivation and (2) the beliefs, activities, etc. of a societal group. The article traces the historical development of these two different meanings without distinguishing sufficiently between them. For example, the bit about Matthew Arnold relates to the first sense of "culture", whereas the bit about Tylor relates to the second sense. This would be okay if the article were depicting a smooth transition from the first usage to the second. But, on the contrary, the first usage pops up again in the discussion of Kant's notion of "enlightenment". I feel tempted to suggest that someone split the article into ''two'' historical accounts — an account of sense (1) and an account of sense (2). However, this may not be feasible, since the two meanings intertwine in the section on German Romanticism. |
|
|
* Some of the phrasing in this article is needlessly verbose and sophisticated. Granted, the concepts being discussed are sometimes sophisticated. However, there's no need to use more academic language when simpler language will do. For example, consider the following passage from the article: "Culture provided a context that made individual actions understandable; geography and history provided a context for understanding the cultural diversity of humankind." Now, it should be clear to most people what this means: we can understand why an individual behaves as he does by examining his culture, and we can understand why his culture is the way it is by looking at the geographical and historical forces that shaped it. Nonetheless, I tried to rephrase the passage to make it easier to understand. |
|
|
* I dislike how the article starts discussing ] without first discussing structuralism and functionalism in detail. As two major (if not ''the'' two major) approaches to the study of culture, structuralism and functionalism should be mentioned first. My concern here isn't primarily a chronological one; if we were organizing this article conceptually rather than chronologically, I would still (or, rather, especially) insist that we start out with a section on functionalism and a section on structuralism. I think Malinowski deserves a bigger discussion than he gets here; heck, I would even be happy to give him a separate subsection devoted to unpacking his approach to culture. Claude Levi-Strauss isn't mentioned at all, which is something I can't understand. |
|
|
* To resolve the above-mentioned tension between a "conceptual" format and a "historical/chronological" format, perhaps the article could have both: it could first lay out the major ''approaches'' (not necessarily any specific theories!) to studying culture (structural, functional, cultural-evolutionist, etc.), and then describe the historical processes by which these different approaches and the most important theories of culture developed (e.g. Tylor developed his theory of cultural evolution, seeing "lower" cultures as intellectually immature; but then people like Boas came along and refuted it, paving the way for cultural relativism in modern anthropology; etc.). Along the way, the historical section might also trace the development of the "first" sense of culture (i.e. cultural as personal cultivation). (See the article ], which has sections that lay out different approaches to studying myth and ''also'' has a section ("Interpretations of mythology") that traces the historical development of the study of myth.) |
|
|
I'm basically an outsider here, a philosophy student with an interest in comparative mythology treading on cultural anthropologists' territory, but there are my two cents. Let me know what you think. |
|
|
--] (]) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think your comments and edits are generally constructive and appreciate them. In some cases i can provide references but am waiting for the books I need but am all for adding more sources. On one major point: "structural-functionalism" has nothing to do with "structuralism" or "functionalism." I know that sounds weird but it is just true - structural-functionalism emerged in both the US and UK before Levi-Strauss's "structuralism" was well-known. Levi-Strauss's analysis of kinship did not come out in French until 1949 and did not really reach an English speaking audience until it was translated into English in the 1960s, when structural-functunalism was on the wane. Moreover, his analysis of kinship, which ended with an early formulation of what would come to be known as "structuralism," was still close enough to Durkheim that structural functionalists could assimilate it into British social anthropology - in this context, Levi Strauss had important ideas but was not yet the major theorist he would become. Although he published ''Structural Anthropology''(in French) in 1958 it was really ''The Savage Mind'' in 1962 that "structuralism" as a real theory emerged. In short, "structural functionalism" may have eventually had some influence on structuralism, but structuralism did not exist when structural functionalism was formulated. The word "functionalism" means many things; in relation to culture, it is only Malinowski's meaning and Durkheim's meanings that are relevant. And they were not thmselves influenced by some general school of thought called "functionalism." I don't really see I can note this in the article but to go into detail would be too much of an academic detour. I didn't go into Levi-Strauss because his notability does not come from his concept of culture but rather from his vision of how anthropologists should work. But I will add something. |
|
|
|
|
|
:it is true that one can divide up anthropological theories of culture very broadly as "functionalist," "structuralist," and "historicist" but I am not sure that any historian of anthropology has ever argued this so for me to use it as a way of explaining approaches to culture would violate NOR. Also, the problem is that the differences between these approaches are very clear when you look at them from a distance but as soon as you read the actual sources very closely, the boundaries quickly blur. ] | ] 20:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Symbolism and symbolic thinking== |
|
|
Hi Slrubenstein, |
|
|
|
|
|
This article rightly states that culture involves the ability to use symbols. After all, institutions, social norms, etc. all require the ability to ''represent'' something as existing. In themselves, coins are just pieces of metal; there's nothing about the coins themselves that makes them money. The coins acquire cultural significance (as money) only because we ''represent'' them as money (e.g. by putting certain words and pictures on them). |
|
|
|
|
|
However, I can't help feeling that there must be a better way to phrase things. First of all, it probably isn't immediately obvious to the ordinary reader why "symbolism" should be particularly important to culture. To most people, the word "symbol" evokes images of flags and museum paintings and sacred texts. "Why," an ordinary person might say, "should those things be particularly central to human culture? Isn't everyday human culture more about money, political structures, laws, etc.?" Such a person might not realize that money ''symbolizes'' value, and that laws and political offices exist only because we ''represent'' or ''symbolize'' them as existing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, I notice that the article repeatedly says that culture relies on the ability to represent ''experiences'' symbolically. I ''think'' I understand what that means, but I'm not sure. Also, can't it be argued that much of culture involves the symbolic representation of things that ''haven't'' been experienced (e.g. gods, afterlife)? |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to try to do some more "editing for clarity" on this article. I'll raise concerns as I come across them. Hope you find this helpful. --] (]) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First of all, not all anthropologists agree that culture is primarily symbolic. Many anthropologists (like Harris, Steward, Vayda and Rappaport - these are the significant figures but they have influenced a host of younger scholars) view culture as a set of adaptations and are not especially interested in symbols as such. Second, for many anthropologists symbols are just one aspect of culture, and an aspect that some anthropologists (like Geertz, Schneider, and Turner) focus on. I try to explain both of these points in the section on '''symbols versus adaptations''' and if you think it is not clear maybe now you can help clarify. Finally, there are many anthropologists for whom culture is based on symbolic thought. I agree that it is not entirely evident but the strongest evidence to support this view comes from research on human evolution and language. I have only now written the section on evolution, although it is not my specialization I know all the notable sources. I hope that this section clarifies things but the fact is I just wrote it and it definitely will need polishing and work. Finally, I am not a linguist and have invited linguists at Misplaced Pages to work on the language section - this too would help explain the importance of symbols. But there are very few linguists who are active wikipedians and only one left some notes on this talk page but has not worked on the article. I will work on this when I have time, but the fact is the article needs a section on language and culture to fully answer your question. ] | ] 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A confusing passage== |
|
|
"Gerald Weiss has pointed out that although Tylor’s classic definition of culture was restricted to humans, many anthropologists have equated culture with any learned behavior. This slippage is a problem because some primatologists were trained in anthropology, and others were not. Notable non-anthropologists, like ] and ] thus argued that chimpanzees have culture.<ref>Robert Yerkes 1943 ''Chimpanzees: A Laboratory Colony''. New Haven: Yale University Press. 51-52, 189, 193</ref><ref>Jane Goodall 1963 “My Life Among Wild Chimpanzees” ''National Geographic'' 124: 308</ref> Anthropological primatologists are thus divided, several arguing that other primates have culture.<ref>R. J. Andrew 1963 “Comment on The Essential Morphological Basis for Human Culture” Alan Bryan ''Current Anthropology'' 4: 301-303, p. 301</ref><ref>Alan Bryan 1963 “The Essential Morphological basis for Human Culture” ''Current Anthropology'' 4: 297</ref><ref>Keleman 1963 “Comment on The Essential Morphological Basis for Human Culture” Alan Bryan ''Current Anthropology'' 4: 301-303 p.304</ref><ref>W. C. McGrew 1998 “Culture in nonhuman primates?” ''Annual Review of Anthropology'' 27: 301-328</ref>" |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I don't understand the logical structure of the above passage. Specifically, I don't understand why the fact that "some primatologists were trained in anthropology, and others were not" is the ''reason'' why the diversity of useages of the word "culture" among anthropologists is a problem. If there's a diversity of uses of the term "culture" among anthropologists, then anthropological primatologists are going to be "divided" on the issue of non-human culture regardless of whether some primatologists weren't trained in anthropology. |
|
|
|
|
|
Each of the statements in the quoted passage seems perfectly fine. I just don't understand what they're doing in the same paragraph. --] (]) 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will try to clarify it now! ] | ] 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== My recent additions and strategy == |
|
== Source for Raimon Panikkar == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following quote: |
|
I have worked a lot on the sections on archeologists and material culture, and biological anthropologists and the evolution of culture. We still need to work on the section on language and culture, and "cultural studies." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raimon Panikkar identified 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about, including growth, development, evolution, involution, renovation, reconception, reform, innovation, revivalism, revolution, mutation, progress, diffusion, osmosis, borrowing, eclecticism, syncretism, modernization, indigenization, and transformation. |
|
My objective is this: to adequately represent the current scholarship on culture. In academe, there are two disciplines that make "culture" their principal object of study: American anthropology (in Europe, anthropology's principal object of study is usually "society" and not "culture"), and Cultural Studies (which has two very different versions, in the UK and US). I am not an expert in Cultural Studies but have solicited the help of Wikipedians who are, to work on that section. I have been focussing on anthropology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is proven by this source: |
|
I think it makes sense to start with the academic disciplines that make culture their primary object of study, because it is these disciplines (anthropology and cultural studies) that have influenced researchers in other fields who use the word "culture" in scholarly research. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panikkar, Raimon (1991). Pathil, Kuncheria, ed. Religious Pluralism: An Indian Christian Perspective. ISPCK. pp. 252–99. ISBN 9788172140052. OCLC 25410539. |
|
I do think it makes sense then to add on coverage of other fields of research. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, the book of Kuncheria does not contain any text of Panikkar, Raimon. |
|
This will result in a very large article. Indeed, eventually this article will need to be split up into linked articles, with summaries in the main article. However, I think it is wise to let Wikipedians who have expertise on cultural studies, and on linguistics, physical anthropology, cultureal anthropology, and archeology to work on this article in one space until it is stable and coherent. That is the time to spin off articles - because only at that time will we be sure that the linked articles are consistent with one another. ] | ] 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the scientific value is very doubtable. Neither is the classification helpful for the article nor is it of a good epistemological quality (the different terms are not clearly distinctable but overlapping, ...)<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21 August 2017</small> |
|
:I like where you have taken the article, SLR. It is now much more grounded in history and scholarship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II== |
|
:The distinction that "... in Europe, anthropology's principal object of study is usually 'society' and not 'culture'" seems somewhat facile to me. Surely there is considerable interplay between the two (several) anthropologies. Moreover, I believe that there is significant overlap between the curricula of British (Canadian, Australian) social anthropology and American cultural anthropology. And everyone seems to have borrowed freely from French structuralism. As the WP article on ] notes: "differences among British, French, and American sociocultural anthropologies have diminished with increasing dialogue and borrowing of both theory and methods." I would like to edit the article with this in mind. |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Algoma_University/Introduction_to_Community_Economic_and_Social_Development_II_(Winter_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-04-12 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
:Your point about the size of the article seems well taken. As I understand it, you are saying write and expand the article first, then, once it is stable, pare it down and decide what should go into subordinate or related articles. I like that approach. If we get a dedicated group of editors working on this, we might have an ] in the making. ] (]) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Refs == |
|
HI Sunray - I responded in detail to your point on your usefrpage. For now let me just say, I question this claim fron another article: "differences among British, French, and American sociocultural anthropologies have diminished with increasing dialogue and borrowing of both theory and methods." When I talk to my British colleagues, they tell me the only cultural anthropologists they had to read in university were Geertz, Schneider, and Wagner. At a recent conference, I heard a prominent UK anthropologist say that American cultural anthropologists had tried to colonize the UK and should be resisted. I wish there were more dialogue! That said, please do not think that dialogue leads to homogeneity. People value diversity! If you were to read ethnographies of Amazonian peoples, you would find - today I mean - that the ones written by UK anthropologists mostly cite work by UK anthropologists (or the LA students) and works by US anthropologistss mostly cite US anthropologists (or their LA students). This does not mean that US and UK anthropologists do not talk to one another or read one another's books. It does mean that there are networks with concentrated nodes in different countries that have a huge impact on the production of knowledge. There are individuals in the US and UK who are practically converts to structuralism. There certainly are influences. But when there was a push to merge the articles on cultural anthropology and social anthropology, the few anthropologists here at Misplaced Pages - US and UK based - all opposed it. See this comment by noted British social anthropologist Mdfisher. NB: I believe his interpretation of what is going on in the US is flat out wrong. But the fact that he misunderstands what is going on in US anthropology just reenforces his major claim, which is that social andthropology and cultural anthropolgy are really different, different enough to merit their own articles. Just like ] and ] merit their own articles. I am not banning social anthropologists from Misplaced Pages! I would not want the article on ] to have a lot of content on ] either - not because I am anti-solicitors, just because they merit their own article. Why is it so upsetting to some people to say that these two things are different? It is clarity, not prejudice! ] | ] 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Nuccorini, Stefania. "Culture in the OED online Phrases and Quotations" Lexicographica, vol. 39, no. 1, 2023, pp. 33-53. https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2023-0004 |
|
:I wouldn't argue for any merger or grand synthesis. Just a dialogue, and a basic recognition that when we study culture, we must look at societies and use the medium of language. ] (]) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 03:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Indigenous North America== |
|
::Well, in order to focus on "culture" I have actuallyu left a lot of history of anthropology ''out'' of the article. I agree with you, and hope that links to these other, related articles will help readers who want to know more! ] | ] 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Linn_Benton_Community_College/Introduction_to_Indigenous_North_America_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-09-30 | end_date = 2024-12-20 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 05:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
==Substantial edit of article to reduce length and add breadth== |
|
|
A lot of useful information has been added to the article over the past few weeks, however there are substantial problems. The current size of the article is about 102Kb. On length grounds alone, action to shorten and/or divide the article seems warranted. The subject of the article is the concept of culture. This concept is not owned by any one academic field, nor even by academic fields as a group. The concept is widely used in books on a miriad of topics. In that context, the article as it stands contains too littel discussion of the uses of the concept of culture in society at large - for example, in psychiatry, psychology, education of minorities, and so on, and too much material about academic theories of culture, and the history of development of these theories. I have been working offline on a substantial edit of the article to correct these problems. I intend to insert my edits within the next twelve hours. I would appreciate suggestions on the best way of preserving material that I remove for length or off-topic reasons. My current idea is to add a new topic Culture (theories), into which all of the parts of the current article which are about theories of culture would be moved, leaving here only shorter summaries.--] (]) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
Raimon Panikkar identified 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about, including growth, development, evolution, involution, renovation, reconception, reform, innovation, revivalism, revolution, mutation, progress, diffusion, osmosis, borrowing, eclecticism, syncretism, modernization, indigenization, and transformation.
Yet, the book of Kuncheria does not contain any text of Panikkar, Raimon.
Furthermore, the scientific value is very doubtable. Neither is the classification helpful for the article nor is it of a good epistemological quality (the different terms are not clearly distinctable but overlapping, ...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.196.58 (talk) 21 August 2017