Updates, Live

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Un cuvant pe zi: ciumpalac


Cf. 123urban (colectie de termeni si expresii care desi nu si-au gasit locul in dictionarele traditionale, umbla libere si nestingherite in limbajul colocvial), ciumpalac inseamna ghertzoi. Bine, bine, dar ce inseamna ghertzoi, ne putem intreba. Mergem la acelasi 123urban (care dupa cum vedem continua acolo unde s-a oprit academia) si gasim ghertzoi definit ca persoana lipsita de maniere. Se da si un exemplu: m-a calcat ghertzoiu' ala pe picioare, asa un nesimtit!

Cele doua cuvinte au fost intalnite prima oara in anul 2006, se pare. Suntem in 2012, iar cuvantul ciumpalac si-a extins intre timp intelesul: el desemneaza acum acele persoane care nu inteleg politicile neoliberale.


(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Monday, December 05, 2011

Semiurgy


I will take here again a fragment from a previous blogpost, as I think a term that was used there needs explanation.

The fragment is a quote from Zygmunt Bauman's Intimations of postmodernity (1992):

In its practical implementation, communism was a system one-sidedly adapted to the task of mobilizing social and natural resources in the name of modernization: the nineteenth-century, steam and iron ideal of modern plenty. It could - at least in its own conviction - compete with capitalists, but solely with capitalists engaged in the same pursuits. What it could not do and did not brace itself to do was to match the performance of the capitalist, market-centered society once that society abandoned its steel mills and coal mines and moved into the postmodern age (once it passed over, in Jean Baudrillard's apt aphorism, from metallurgy to semiurgy; stuck at its metallurgical stage, Soviet communism, as if to cast out devils, spent its energy on fighting wide trousers, long hair, rock music and any other manifestations of semiurgical initiative).

This is the fragment, and the term is semiurgy.

Mikhail Epstein: Semiurgy is the art of creating new signs and sign systems, as opposed to semiotics as the science of signs, and rhetoric as the effective usage of signs. The word semiurge would mean an artisan of signs, the demiurge is the creator of the world.

Let's take it slowly. To begin, some sources on the web:

The term was used firstly in the works of Jean Baudrillard (French philosopher from the postmodernist epoch) and René Berger (a Swiss, also a philosopher of French expression, also a postmodernist). Which of them coined the term, it's debatable (anyway, each of them started from McLuhan).

So, semiurgy combines semiotics and demiurgy. Semiotics is the science of signs. A demiurge creates the physical objects composing the physical world. Well, the semiurge creates the signs composing our postmodern world (which is a world of signs, if you didn't know). As simple as that!

Fine, only we don't know too well what a sign is.

Here comes Baudrillard, with his object value system (For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, 1983). In passing from object to sign he considers four stages:
  1. The first is the functional value of an object; its instrumental purpose. A pen, for instance, writes; and a refrigerator cools.
  2. The second is the exchange value of an object; its economic value. One pen may be worth three pencils; and one refrigerator may be worth the salary earned by three months of work.
  3. The third is the symbolic value of an object; a value that a subject assigns to an object in relation to another subject. A pen might symbolize a student's school graduation gift or a commencement speaker's gift; or a diamond may be a symbol of publicly declared marital love.
  4. The last is the sign value of an object; its value within a system of objects. A particular pen may, while having no added functional benefit, signify prestige relative to another pen; a diamond ring may have no function at all, but may suggest particular social values, such as taste or class.
And, as Bauman uses a metaphor coined by Baudrillard (the passing from metallurgy to semiurgy), we can observe that actually they define the postindustrial society by making a parallel to the industrial society. Signs are defined by making the parallel to objects.

An industrial society operates with physical objects. A postindustrial society operates with signs, which are objects at a more abstract level.

As I understand, all societies can be characterized by their icons. In an industrial society the icon is the number of tones of steel (or of cement, or of butter): if the society produces that amount of tones of steel, everybody's happy: there will be enough steel to have any kind of goods to satisfy people. In a postindustrial society the icon is the hip-hop music: if the rating for hip-hop music is good, everybody's happy: they will buy new electronics (to listen to that music), new clothing (to go to dance), new cars (to be hip-hop tuned), new computers (to download music), the credit will work and the malls will be crowded. Steel is still there, only somewhere in the background, nobody cares any more.

Only icon is icon and keyword is keyword: in the industrial society icon and keyword were the same, steel; in the postindustrial society the icon is hip-hop, the keyword is credit.

And if mass production created and eventually killed the industrial society, will also credit be the creator and the demon?





(A Life in Books)

(Zygmunt Bauman)

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Panentheism and Eastern Christianity


Firstly let's make the distinction between Pantheism and Panentheism. Pantheism equates Cosmos (Nature, Universe) and God (maybe we should say rather Godhead).

Panentheism keeps the immanence of Cosmos, while adding to it a transcendental dimension. Simpler put, for a Panentheist, Godhead is not only Cosmos, it is also what's beyond.

It sounds a bit arid, I agree. Let's put it this way: if we consider Cosmos (Universe, Nature) as the whole that can be physically observed, then for Pantheism the Godhead is in the whole (not beyond), while for Panentheism the whole is in the Godhead (who extends beyond).

Important to understand is that both Pantheism and Panentheism equate (at least partially) Cosmos and Godhead. A line from Yeats comes in mind: How can we know the dancer from the dance?

It's much to say about this, here are just some quick notes.

Some argue that Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy) is at least partially Panentheistic. I do not agree. Eastern Church professes the belief in one God who encompasses Essence (Οὐσία, Ousia), Persons (ὑπόστᾰσις, Hypostasis - Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and Uncreated Energies (ἐνεργέω, Energeia). The presence of God in the Universe is manifest through these Uncreated Energies. Here the keyword is Uncreated: Eastern Christianity keeps a net distinction between Creation and Divine Energies (Uncreated, as they are a manifestation of God, who is the Creator, not the Creation).

There would be also something to add here about what Eastern theology has to say about a human being who advances towards Theosis, but let's leave it now. Maybe later (not sure).

As I said above, these are just quick notes, nothing more. For those who want to study seriously the matter I recommend a very solid treatise: The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky.

(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Euthyphro Dilemma


---------------

SOCRATES: Then what do we say about piety? Isn’t it what is loved by all the gods, according to your definition?

EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: Just because it is pious, or for some other reason?

EUTHYPHRO: No, because it is pious.

SOCRATES: So it is loved because it is pious, not pious because it is loved?

EUTHYPHRO: It seems so.

SOCRATES: But it is because a thing is loved by the gods that it is an object of love or god-beloved.

EUTHYPHRO: Of course.

SOCRATES: Then what is god-beloved is not the same as what is pious, Euthyphro, nor is what is pious the same as what is god-beloved, as you assert; they are two different things
---------------


Let's express the Euthyphro Dillema from the perspective of monotheistic religions: is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? Either way you take you arrive at a dead point. Great philosophers and theologians discussed the dilemma and came with various answers

(You could agree or not with what I'm saying here) Actually it is a false dilemma and Socrates is right: God's will and moral order are different things. Moral order operates on human scale and is created (and maintained) by humans for human use. God has another scale.

Says Katherin A. Rogers (analyzing how St. Anselm considered this dilemma), Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value.

Two web sites where the Euthyphro dilemma is discussed (and of course there are many other places where you can find it):


(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

A Bit About the Free Will


A 17th century Calvinist print depicting Pelagius. The text under the image is condemning him unequivocally ( Accurst Pelagius with that false pretence, and so on): a condemnation that follows the tradition inaugurated by Augustine. Recent studies have defended Pelagius as a misunderstood orthodox.

Here are some very quick notes. An introduction to the works of Augustine is on the website of Georgetown University (which is run by Jesuits, by the way) at:


From Augustine comes the classification of human - sin relations:

  • before the Adamic Fall, the ability to either sin or not sin (posse peccare / posse non peccare): Pre-Fall Humanity
  • after the Fall, unable to not sin (non posse non peccare): Fallen Humanity
  • after the Redemption on the Cross, able not to sin (posse non peccare): Redempted Humanity
  • At the End of Times, unable to sin (non posse peccare): Glorified Humanity
(You can find this classification for instance at Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html).

It is a classification raising of course questions about the place that remains for our free will. And also the observation that our civilization, shaped by centuries of biblical authority, lives with the complex of Original Sin, tempting to see each human as potentially guilty by association. Let's also note here that Eastern and Western theologians differ in some subtle nuances on the theory of Original Sin. In the East it is viewed rather as the Ancestral Sin (with implications on the consequences for the human condition: Original Sin is kind of Mother of All Sins so to speak, and so all humans share the responsibility; Ancestral Sin makes us victims rather than shareholders). If I find the text I have read on this not long ago I'll let you know.

Pelagius had very distinct views on these issues. I found a synthetic presentation (followed by the point by point responses of Augustine) at:


Here are the seven points of Pelagius:

  • First, Adam was created neither holy nor evil. His will was in a state of moral equilibrium or moral indifference.
  • Second, Adam would have died physically whether he sinned or not. Physical death is not a penalty for sin but is the inevitable corollary of being a creature.
  • Third, Adam's fall affected neither himself nor his posterity, except insofar as he set for them a bad example. Infants, therefore, are born innocent and without a sin nature. They are in the same condition as Adam was before his fall.
  • Fourth, freedom of will consists in the power of contrary choice, i.e., man is both able to sin (posse peccare) and able not to sin (posse non peccare). He is equally capable of either.
  • Fifth, ability limits obligation. The commands and prohibitions in Scripture necessarily imply the ability to fulfill them. Inability destroys responsibility.
  • Sixth, grace is external, resistible, and consists primarily of moral instruction and the law of God.
  • Seventh, perfection in holiness or freedom from sin is possible in this life.

(Psalter)

Labels:

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Limited or Universal Salvation?


Steve Heyduck is a United Methodist pastor who currently serves as the Chaplain of the Methodist Children’s Home in Waco, TX, plus some other similar tasks there. He considers himself a postmodern, possibly emergent Christian.

I found his blog by chance. The blog has an impressive title (Everyday Theology, from a nonconstantian, postmodern perspective). Well, the title can sometimes be deceiving, but Steve has some interesting points that I liked.

There is a blogpost where he talks about what should be the job of the church: transforming the world is not our job; it is God’s; God doesn’t even need our help, but God has invited us along on the journey toward a transformed world. That resonates, I think, with the ideas exposed by another pastor that I am honored to know, Reverend David Ensign, the Minister of the Clarendon Presbyterian Church in Arlington, VA.

By the way, the title of that blogpost was Missionderstanding. I totally agree. Instead of lecturing people about the superiority of Euro-centric Christianity the preachers should invite us in a journey toward the universal values that even God likes (I hope I am not going further than the blogpost of Steve suggests :) Just kidding).

How I arrived to the blog of Steve Heyduck, the pastor from Waco, it's another story. I was trying to find an answer to a question that I think about for a long time. The Predestination as it is presented by Calvin always seemed to me far too restrictive (to put it mildly: I thought of it as truly barbarian), and I was very intrigued how could emerged from it today's Reformed Church, so progressive and inclusive.

Well, first of all, I didn't know the whole truth about the doctrine of Calvin: he thought that all of us are sinners and so none of us would deserve Salvation. And he considered that God elected from the beginnings some of us to be saved. A decision that we cannot question the reason , because it is not to us, humans to know what God does.

Well, you could say then, let's sin, some of us will be saved anyway, the rest not, so what to do other than sin? I would say here that moral and religion are separate things. If we do bad things here on Earth, it is the society that punishes us. The moral is created by humans and operates on a human scale, through laws and coercion and stuff. God operates on another scale: everything we do here on Earth, good or bad, is just sin, because it is far from God.

So this was the point of Calvin. And I didn't know that the Reformed theologians got rid of Calvin's opinion on Predestination and evolved toward other ideas.

Some went on to the radically opposite side: God will save us all, because he loves us all. And all our deeds, good or bad, are nothing to Him, as they are just on human scale. God has another compass. Two schools of thought went towards this idea, (and finally in America they merged in the Unitarian Universalist Church: Unitarians keep that humans are too good to be not saved by God, Universalists believe that Good loves us too much to not save all of us; if you allow me a joke here, Unitarians keep that people are too good to not accept God regardless, Universalists keep that God is too good to not accept us regardless).

It is a very generous idea, that has however a bias: what remains of the free will? Some of us just don't want to be saved. Is Christianity a religion for slaves?

And Steve Heyduck has another impressive blogpost about this question (Universal Calvinism). Firstly he thinks that Christians have done a huge disservice to our task of welcoming and growing Kingdom here and now by putting hope off until life after death (he adds that in The Great Divorce Lewis suggested that life after death will be a magnification of this life). Then he observes that if God accepted everyone, then what happens to humanity’s vaunted free will?


It is much to say and I will come back to this. And not only once. It is much to say about the Five Points of Calvinism, about all its history up to Postmodern Christianity, about the Posse Peccare / Non Posse Non Peccare and all that stuff.

Maybe Catholicism has a better answer (Reformed guys would be surprised): God is too delicate to impede upon our free will. We are free to follow Him or to sin. It's to us, not to Him. He does not interfere.

Or maybe the bias in all these various schools of thought is too much reasoning. Eastern Orthodoxy will just say that all this is mystery. Silouan the Athonite expresses it admirably: keep you mind in hell, but do not despair.


(Church in America)

Labels:

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Quoting from Freud




Before diagnosing yourself with depression or low self esteem, make sure not to be, in fact, simply surrounded by assholes.

Inainte de a va diagnostica cu depresie sau stima de sine scazuta, asigurati-va sa nu fiti de fapt, pur si simplu, inconjurat de gaozari.


Cultura Gitana (which I am proud to be her Facebook friend) brought this image to my attention. She took it from Prado Jiménez, who in turn took it from Entrada No Para Cualquiera. That's the way it works on Facebook.


(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Friday, October 07, 2011

Kon-Tiki



I received this book from my father, when I was thirteen or fourteen. Kon-Tiki: Across the Pacific by Raft, written by Thor Heyerdahl. It was a Romanian translation made after a Soviet edition. That was the situation in my country those years (mainly the fifties): many books were published in Romania in translations made after Soviet editions. I had also the Fairy Tales of Andersen and Il Milione of Marco Polo in Romanian renderings of Russian translations.

The preface to Kon-Tiki was exactly the one for the Soviet edition and it was a very serious essay about the theories of Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl. He had been fascinated since childhood by the Polynesian culture and as a young had traveled there. Heyerdahl started to believe that their origin was the to be found in Pre-Columbian America, not in Asia, as it was generally accepted by scholars.

This was a daring hypothesis and there was against it a common sense argument, above all: how could have traveled these tribes several thousands of miles across the Pacific on balsa rafts? Because that was the only naval technology they knew, these inhabitants of Pre-Columbian South America.

The Second World War came over Norway and over the whole Europe and put a halt on the researches of Heyerdahl. After the war he returned to his work and decided to make himself the journey between America and the Polynesian archipelago, using a balsa raft built exactly the way the old guys had been building their rafts. Heyerdahl gathered a small crew of enthusiasts, found the balsa trees in the mountains of Ecuador, came with them to Callao, Peru, built the raft in the shipyard there, keeping to the technology used by Pre-Columbian Americans: a vessel without a single nail, only ropes were used to keep the balsa logs joined. Once the raft was ready, they made the journey towards Polynesia. It was 1947 and it took 101 days. The common sense argument against his theory was now invalid.

However Heyerdahl's theory remained highly controversial, and much later, when DNA tests came into picture, the conclusions were in favor of Asian origin. I have read after many years a book of Bryan Sykes (The Seven Daughters of Eve) mentioning, among other things, the DNA results relative to the origin of Polynesians (though I must say that the conclusions of Sykes are also controversial, but that's the way it is in the history of science).

Anyway, the journey on the balsa raft across Pacific remained a splendid adventure and the book of Heyerdahl inflamed my imagination. I wanted to know what happened afterward with these brave men, the team of Heyerdahl. Their lives have been extraordinary. Heyerdahl went on building other rafts and boats using ancient technologies and made other sea journeys to prove his theories. Bengt Danielsson, the Swedish scholar interested in human migration theories, moved to Polynesia and continued to study the local cultures there, authoring many books and screenplays on these topics, and being an outspoken critic of the destruction of indigenous universe by colonialism. Knut Haugland returned to the military and later in life became the director of Norway's Resistance Museum and of the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo. He and Torstein Raaby had been heroes of the Norwegian Resistance against German Nazism. Raaby (who was together with Haugland in charge of radio communications on Kon-Tiki, and made possible the connection with amateur radio enthusiasts in Chile, the USA, and even Norway, on a tiny 6-watt transmitter) returned after the expedition in northern Norway and worked as a radio operator on remote islands far north of the Arctic Circle. He died in Greenland of a heart condition while en route on an expedition to reach the North Pole on skis.

The Kon-Tiki story fascinated me, as I was a young boy impressed by all stories of sea adventures and of journeys on uncharted lands. Well, the Kon-Tiki expedition has continued to fascinate me across my life, and I can give you two rather funny details. First of all, every time I go to New York I wonder where the Norwegian sailors' shelter should be: Thor Heyerdahl mentioned in his book that he was always being hosted there when coming for several days in the big North-American city. Nobody was able to tell me. It's true that New York City is large, no question about. But I was able to find the 1st Street in Manhattan, which very few know where it's hidden. So maybe one day I'll find also the Norwegian sailors' shelter. And, another fancy detail, as I love eating sweet potatoes (especially in a smoked fish salad, mixed with red onion, paprika and other beauties), well, every time I have such a salad I remember that sweet potatoes were in high esteem on board of the balsa raft.


A 77 minute documentary was made in 1950 using the black&white 16 mm footage filmed by the crew of Kon-Tiki during the trip. It is a wonderful movie, as it keeps strictly to the facts. It is just that, what was filmed by the crew, using of course a very limited equipment (how else on a balsa raft?). A voice from off accompanies the images, without any emphasis: the footage speaks by itself, it's no need to embellish. This is a great movie in its stunning simplicity, a gem of Minimalist art. Watching it is a superb treat.

No wonder Kon-Tiki received in 1951 the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.




(Kon-Tiki): Part 1/6
(video by ouroboros3712)




(Kon-Tiki): Part 2/6
(video by ouroboros3712)




(Kon-Tiki): Part 3/6
(video by ouroboros3712)




(Kon-Tiki): Part 4/6
(video by ouroboros3712)




(Kon-Tiki): Part 5/6
(video by ouroboros3712)




(Kon-Tiki): Part 6/6
(video by ouroboros3712)



In addition to the black & white film, the expedition was also equipped with color film. Most of the color reels were stolen prior to their departure. Some of the remaining material was damaged by water during the journey. The following sequences are therefore the only color footage available from the expedition.



Kon-Tiki: the color footage that remained unspoiled
(video by seyng523)



(German and Nordic Cinema)

(German and Nordic Literature)

Labels:

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Culture Vs. Civilization and Multiculturalism Vs. Evolutionism

The Old Stove in Potbelly, Rockville, MD

It sounds fallacious, but that's the way it is: when it comes to anthropology, evolutionism is opposed by multiculturalism! Well, actually multiculturalism is built on the opposition to some developments that emerged from evolutionism. These developments stay under the umbrella of the so-called Social Darwinism (which has a point, of course, only it is not the absolute truth).

The pioneers of anthropology were building on evolutionist principles (even before Darwin, as they were following Spencer). Lewis Henry Morgan in Ancient Society (1877): the latest investigations respecting the early condition of the human race, are tending to the conclusion that mankind commenced their career at the bottom of the scale and worked their way up from savagery to civilization through the slow accumulations of experimental knowledge. Edward B. Tylor in Anthropology (1881): on the whole it appears that wherever there are found elaborate arts, abstruse knowledge, complex institutions, these are results of gradual development from an earlier, simpler, and ruder state of life; no stage of civilization comes into existence spontaneously, but grows or is developed out of the stage before it; this is the great principle which every scholar must lay firm hold of, if he intends to understand either the world he lives in or the history of the past. Engels in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (1881) uses extensively the results of Morgan.

In the first decade of the twentieth century the evolutionist approach in anthropology took a strong racist flavor, linking racial types to particular stages in culture development. Ellsworth Huntington in Civilization and Climate (1915): the races of the earth are like trees; each according to its kind brings forth the fruit known as civilization ... no one expects pears on cherry branches, and it is useless to look for Slavic civilization among the Chinese ... the nature of a people's culture, like the flavor of a fruit, depends primarily upon racial inheritance which can be changed only by the slow processes of biological variation and selection.

Franz Boas was the first anthropologist who took a strong stance against racism, and successfully turned the anthropology towards multiculturalism. His The Mind of the Primitive Man (1911) rejected both racism and evolutionism, emphasizing their unavoidable linkage. Says he in the preface of the 1938 edition of this book, there is no fundamental difference in the ways of thinking of primitive and civilized man; a close connection between race and personality has never been established. According to Kroeber, tirelessly Boas pulled down the various schemes of origins and evolutionistic stages, of quasi-spontaneous generatings out of the nature of the mind of man; he pulled down racism as an explanation of cultural differences; he denied environmental determinism; unitary as well as Kulturkreis determinism by diffusion--in short, all simplistic determinations.

I took this information from Edward Jayne's The Anthropologist's Fallacy, which, ironically, is extremely critical when it comes to multiculturalism.

All these recent posts should be for me just a starting point, some indications where to begin from, what to read first, if time wouldn't be my greatest enemy.

Morgan (who is the only American to be cited by such diverse scholars as Marx, Darwin, and Freud - however not by Moses and Einstein) is best known for his work on kinship and social structure, his theories of social evolution, and his ethnography of the Iroquois. Interested in what holds societies together, he proposed the concept that the earliest human domestic institution was the matrilineal clan, not the patriarchal family; the idea was accepted by most pre-historians and anthropologists throughout the late nineteenth century.

Tyler is considered the founding father of social anthropology. His works are based on the evolutionist theories of Charles Lyell (who was also influential on Darwin). Tyler believed animism was the first phase in the development of religions. How would a multiculturalist react to this? Just kidding.

Huntington is known for his studies on climatic determinism, economic growth and economic geography. He made expeditions to Central Asia, also to Palestine, to determine step by step the process by which geologic structure, topographic form, and the present and past nature of the climate have shaped man's progress, molded his history; and thus played an incalculable part in the development of a system of thought which could scarcely have arisen under any other physical circumstances.

Boas was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the Father of American Anthropology and the Father of Modern Anthropology. Like many such pioneers, he trained in other disciplines; he received his doctorate in physics, and did post-doctoral work in geography. He applied the scientific method to the study of human cultures and societies; previously this discipline was based on the formulation of grand theories around anecdotal knowledge. Was he an anti-evolutionist? Well, he distinguished between physical science, which seeks to discover the laws governing phenomena, and historical science, which seeks a thorough understanding of phenomena on their own terms. Boas argued that geography and anthropology are and must be historical in this sense. Was he against Darwin? No, only against Morgan, Tylor and Huntington. As for Darwin, he was okay for Boas, provided Darwinists remained confined to the physical fields of science.

(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Culture Vs. Civilization: Far East Mythology


Gregory James Smits in Topics in Pre-Modern Chinese History (Chapt 12 Myth, History, Cultural Values, Social Tensions):

Overall, what are these tales of the culture heroes and sage kings about? Also, what are they not about? Mythology often attempts to explain the origins of humans in general or a specific group of people in particular, but none of these Chinese tales do. This is not to say that there were no Chinese myths about these topics--there were--but the myths that made it into the major historical accounts were not concerned with the origins of human beings, Chinese in particular, the earth, or China in particular. These things seem to have been taken for granted. Instead, the myths rendered into history explain the origins of culture and civilization, both material and non-material. In their Han dynasty forms, the tales appear sanitized, with high doses of moral ideology and no mention of the explicit sex and violence common in the creation mythology of many other societies (e.g., Korea and Japan).


(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Culture Vs. Civilization: Difference Between


  1. Culture is by definition smaller than a civilization.
  2. Culture can grow and exist without residing in a formal civilization whereas a civilization will never grow and exist without the element of culture.
  3. Culture can be tangible or intangible whereas civilization is something that is more tangible because it is what you see as a whole
  4. Culture can be transmitted through symbols in the form of language whereas an entire civilization cannot be transmitted by mere language alone.
Read the whole text at:


According to anthropologists of 19th century, Culture is earlier and Civilization is later. Everything created by man is culture, civilization is an advanced state of cultural development. Culture developed in three stages: Savagery >> Barbarianism >> Civilization.

Alfred Louis Kroeber said Culture is super organic, he has given three forms of culture namely Social Culture (Status and Role), Value Culture (Philosophy, Morals) and Reality Culture (Science and Technology, etc). According to Kroeber civilization is a part of reality culture. Robert Redfield said culture is a totality of traditions and civilization is a totality of great and little traditions.

Kroeber (who had a lifelong interest in languages, fluent in English and German, erudite in Latin and Greek) was the student of Boas (we'll speak later about him) - which explains his directions in anthropology. Although Kroeber is known primarily as a cultural anthropologist, he did significant work in archaeology and anthropological linguistics, and he contributed to anthropology by making connections between archaeology and culture.
(Wiki)


After a series of field studies on Mexican communities Redfield moved further into a broader synthesis of disciplines including archeology, anthropological linguistics, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and ethnology. Redfield wrote in 1955 about his own experience doing research in Latin America on peasants. As he did research, he realized he had been trained to treat the society as an isolated culture. However, he found people were involved with trade, and there were connections between villages and states. More than that, the village culture was not bounded. Beliefs and practices were not isolated. Redfield realized it did not make sense to study people as isolated units, but rather it would be better to understand a broader perspective. Traditionally, anthropologists had studied folk ways in the little tradition. Redfield took into account the broader civilization, the great tradition.
(Wiki)


Difference between Culture and Civilization, Sociologists View
  • Culture is what we are --- Civilization is what we have
  • Culture has no standard of measurement because it is an end in itself --- Civilization has a precised standard of measurement. The universal standard of civilization is utility because civilization is a means


Difference between Culture and Civilization, Anthropologists View
  • All societies have culture --- Only a few societies have civilization
  • Culture is earlier --- Civilization is later
  • Culture is pre-condition for civilization to develop --- Civilization represents a stage of cultural advancement
  • Culture is super organic --- Civilization is a part of reality culture
  • Culture is a totality of traditions --- Civilization is a totality of great and little traditions (see the note on Redfield)
Read more at:



(A Life in Books)

Labels:

Culture Vs. Civilization: Nancy Jervis - What Is a Culture?


Are culture and civilization synonyms? No, there is a difference. Some notes from What is a Culture? by Nancy Jervis (PH D, China Institute, NY):

Definition of culture: the thoughts, behaviors, languages, customs, the things we produce and the methods we use to produce them. It is this, the human ability to create and transmit culture, that differentiates us as humans from the rest of the animal world.

The essential feature of culture, that it is learned and transmitted from one generation to the next, rests on the human capacity to think symbolically. Language, perhaps the most important feature, is a symbolic form of communication.

How do cultures form in the first place? Groups of people living in specific ecological niches interacted with their environments over long periods of time. Given a certain degree of isolation, they developed adaptations to their environment, methods of survival, and ways of organizing themselves socially, and came to share beliefs and symbols that explained their world. They also developed a language they used to communicate with each other that enabled them to transmit learning to future generations.

Over time, increasing communication between early human groups broke down geographic isolation. Gradually, through cultural diffusion, linkages were formed and many different specific cultures evolved into larger groupings called culture areas - regions with shared cultural traits.

Over time, a culture may evolve into what is termed a civilization. A civilization is generally understood as a more advanced form of organized life: civilizations usually have more complex forms of social, political, military, and religious life. Writing and the use of metals are also features of some civilizations.

There is no absolute threshold after which we can firmly state that a culture has evolved into a civilization.

Religion is not the same as culture or ethnicity; it can overlap either. Technically, religion is defined as a set of beliefs. But while some religions confine themselves to the realm of ideas or beliefs, other religions extend into the realm of behavior and prohibit or mandate certain actions as well. The Ten Commandments identify behaviors prohibited by the Judeo-Christian religions. For Orthodox Jews, kosher rules are an example of behavior that is required. For Moslems, eating during daylight during Ramadan is prohibited behavior.

All religions that accept or desire converts have had to adapt themselves to the cultures where they spread or they would not have been accepted. Catholicism's spread into South America was facilitated by its willingness to incorporate native religious practices into its canons there, as with the many feasts for saints that are particular to the region. Similarly, as Islam spread in Asia and Africa, it incorporated specific cultural practices peculiar to the areas it reached. For example, Moslem women in sub-Saharan Africa do not wear veils, while those in rural Afghanistan cover themselves with the burka. Female circumcision is practiced in Moslem sub-Saharan Africa, but not anywhere else in the Islamic world. This adaptability of religion to local cultures sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish culture from religion - but they are not the same.

And Nancy Jervis ends up by quoting John H. Bodley (Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and the Global System, 1994): culture is made up of at least three components: what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce; it is shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted cross-generational, adaptive, and integrated.


Read the whole essay at:


So for Nancy Jervis civilization is culture evolved into a more advanced form. I dare to say I would disagree: culture and civilization are however different.

Nancy Jervis is a cultural anthropologist (Ph.D. Columbia), specializing in China. She lived and worked in China for three years (1979-82), having first visited that country in 1972. Her most recent visit was in 1999, when she curated a photographic exhibition of old photos of Beijing at the Museum of Chinese History in Beijing. Her anthropological fieldwork is in Henan Province in north central China.

Dr. Jervis studied film and filmmaking at Sarah Lawrence College and with Jean Rouch in a summer workshop in Massachusetts. In the 1970’s she worked with Dutch documentarian Joris Ivens on the English version of his film series How Yukong Moved the Mountains, and on the films’ premiere at MoMA. In 1979-80, she was the first foreigner after the Cultural Revolution to work at the China Film Corporation in Beijing. Her job including viewing and writing synopses as well as creating sub-titles for newly-released Chinese films for the English-speaking market. Fluent in Chinese, Nancy Jervis is currently Vice President and Director of Programs at China Institute, located in New York City.



(A Life in Books)

Labels: ,