Posted at Feb 14/2010 05:56PM:
Nathaniel Shapiro: Culture is such a nebulous term; I wonder if our definitions merely expose our proclivities and idealized preferences as to what we'd like culture to be.
Posted at Feb 15/2010 05:33PM:
Carrie: I think it is true that culture is a nebulous term; why is this the case? So that it can include a wide variety of entities that might not all have the same exact elements but are similar enough to discuss together (e.g. apples and oranges, discussed together as fruit)? Or because culture is historically contingent and dynamic and thus precise definitions could become quickly outmoded?
Posted at Feb 15/2010 05:38PM:
Carrie: A famous archaeologist/anthropologist once defined culture as "the extra-somatic means of adaptation for the human organism" (Lewis Binford 1962). What might he mean by this?
Posted at Feb 26/2010 04:30PM:
C.Bahamon: I was drawn to this question as it appeared to be deceptively scientific, however, as we've seen in our attempts to define culture in class, the word defies a conventional scientific definition. Though I'm not familiar with Lewis Binford, his quote likens the development of culture to the natural process of Darwinian evolution. Somatic describes things that pertain to the body, which can also be read as the individual. Extra-somatic must therefore pertain to that individual's interactions with others. If Binford links culture to genetic evolution he must view its establishment as a necessity (or simply natural part) of man's existence. This leaves me at the question of whether or not culture is necessary (or if that is even what Binford is implying).
Fact: Culture is way messier than Punnett squares.
Posted at Feb 25/2010 10:41PM:
Michael Bohl: I'm pretty sure somebody else said this in class, but what I consider the best definition of culture is that it's the least common denominator between people. This has a lot to do with sharing - why are we all part of the Brown culture? We share an environment, a purpose for being here, similar ideologies (in most cases), etc. But you can look broader - even though there are infinite smaller, more specific cultures, there's still an American culture - I'd even say there's an Earth culture that distinguishes us from any little green men out there who might visit us. It's just about finding the most specific words that can still apply to everyone in a certain grouping.
But because it has to do with sharing and, in many cases, proximity (sharing environs, culture can be considered a sort of gradient. To people living in southern Upper Egypt, who is more like them culturally? People hundreds of miles north in Lower Egypt who are still considered Egyptians, or the Nubians just a few miles upstream? In my mind this makes me think of ring species - A is close enough to B to be considered the same species (or here, culture), B is close enough to C, C to D.....but at some point A and D (or whatever letter) are too far removed to be considered the same. Sorry if that's getting too off-topic and if I explained it poorly, that's just what it makes me think of.
Posted at Mar 02/2010 11:37AM:
Carrie: This article in the New York Times just came out (March 2) which talks both about culture and evolution: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?8dpc
