But culture can also be dangerous: An outline of a research project (original) (raw)
Related papers
The place of culture in sociology: Romanticism and debates about the `cultural turn
Journal of Sociology, 2007
A spate of recent publications has addressed the question of the place of culture within sociology. While some of these publications are meant to chart the growing field of cultural sociology, and its relationship to so-called cultural studies, others have felt the need to engage in polemical debates regarding the merits of the 'cultural turn' Long, 1997). Therefore, alongside the handbooks, textbooks, primers and readers covering both classical and contemporary efforts in cultural sociology there are the programmatic statements, denunciations and critical pieces regarding what constitutes 'good' social science.
Well before it became autonomous, which made possible contemporary value pluralism and multiculturalism, neo-classical sociologists had been aware of the ascendancy of culture. For instance, Parsons registered the process of 'cultural revolution' through which the cultural system was being differentiated from the social, political and economic systems; and Habermas saw a growing concern with 'motivation and meaning' in 'postmodern societies' taking the place of the older concern with 'value'. The increase in the significance, awareness and discursive availability of culture anticipated by these and other authors took, at least from a neo-classical sociological point of view, a rather unexpected turn. It culminated in the cultural heterogenization of the social that favoured such new developments as postmodernism and cultural studies and, by the same token, threatened sociology with obsolescence and placed sociologists on the defensive. 3
This article reviews current criticism of the concept of culture among academics, identifying the misuses and the social context which have led to calls for it to be abandoned. Drawing extensively on recent critical approaches to the concept, it outlines a complex multi-level approach avoiding the traps of determinism and methodological nationalism, allowing us to better understand and deal with contemporary debates and discourses surrounding culture, in the light of which it appears ever more important that social science scholars make their voices heard.
Journal of Classical Sociology, 2006
It is argued that a renewed reception of the works of the Polish and American scholar Florian Znaniecki should be carried out by any so–called ‘cultural turn’ in sociology. If the new cultural sociology is to obtain firm and broader theoretical grounds, it needs to transcend its mere reaction against structural–functional normativism in search of classic studies of cultural dynamics such as those of Florian Znaniecki. The reasons behind the blurring of Znaniecki's influence upon 20th–century sociologists, including Talcott Parsons and Alfred Schutz, are investigated through a general examination of the reception contexts of his work. An overview of Znaniecki's general theoretical contribution to cultural sociology is simultaneously presented.
This paper offers a critical review of the concept of 'culture', and argues that at this particular juncture of our recent times the case against the concept has become prima facie a strong one. By tracing the various conceptualisations of the notion, its paradigms and schools of thought underlying the study of 'culture' in Western academy and beyond, I argue that in the 21 st century the notion of culture has little to offer in terms of reflecting people's ways of living. Following a post-colonial and Derridean deconstructionist repertories, I argue that the limitation of the term stems from its singular and latent form as it fails to reflect the mobility dynamicity, multiplicity and hybridity of current societies. The study is based on the premise that ''culture'' is thought of as hybrid, contested, and in constant (re)construction; not a noun but a 'verb'. I, therefore, put the concept 'under erasure' to challenge the taken for granted, fixed and unified meaning of the term and move beyond the limitations of several ways it has been studied and theorised. In so doing, I speculate on the relevance of the concept to the liquid post-modern era that is marked by the fragmentation of societies, the emergence of new identities, Diasporas, immigration and birth of cyber-cultures. Additionally, in post-colonial institutional contexts, I argue that the concept of 'culture' mirrors the honorific term of the 'canon' or (the canonised English literary tradition). I contend that both concepts signify archaeology of 'knowledge' of the existing matrix of power relations in academia as well as in world relations. Both concepts signify the adoption of monolithic discourses that still perpetuate the regulation and dissemination of the 'high cultural' or 'canonical ideology', particularly in post-colonial academic contexts. I conclude that, both concepts should undergo critical revision or 'erasure' since they fail to reflect the discursive aspects of human and artistic life. The paper contributes to the wider debate of issues around "culture" and the literary canon by adopting a deconstructive post-colonial argument.
Book Review: Confronting Culture: Sociological Vistas
Journal of Communication Inquiry, 2005
Inglis and Hughson explore the sociology of culture by providing an extensive survey of late 19thand 20th-century perspectives on culture and society. Their goal in this broad overview is to establish a relationship between culture and society and show how sociology, as a discipline, is equipped to undertake a rigorous analysis of both. Although recognizing the work that other disciplines have done in the study of culture, the authors privilege a sociological approach and champion a positivistic orientation. Their rationale is that much of the work of disciplines outside of sociology is too theoretical and without the benefits of empirical data. For them, the sociology of culture aims at particular discernments and resists universal generalizations. At the same time, however, it avails itself of historical insights from sociology, but only insofar as those insights are still relevant and, thus, useful for the contemporary scene. The book spans the intellectual distance from Marx to Bourdieu, through critical theory with Barthes, Saussure, and Raymond Williams in supporting roles. Marx is invoked to reassert the notion that culture is largely determined by socioeconomic conditions. By contrast, Bourdieu’s perspective is employed to address the interplay between culture and society, an interplay that cannot be reduced to material factors if only because such factors operate on a logic of their own. The rest of the authors cited are recognized as having made less, but significant, contributions to the study of culture, and, as such, they ought to be taken into account. In a very real sense, the book resembles a history of sociology, a history predicated on the Hegelian notion of progress. Accordingly, the authors postulate that Bourdieu’s thinking represents a more advanced and sophisticated conception of culture than Marx’s. The book does not offer an explicit statement on the relationship between culture and society despite the authors’plea that this relationship is a central concern for sociology. In place of a definitive statement, the book resorts to the work of numerous scholars who have suggested that such a relationship does exist. The authors, however, endorse only those views that use empirical data to study the relationships between social structure and social action and cultural and social factors. These restrictions are seemingly aimed at working out a sociological canon for cultural study. The authors make an exception to this rule by including classical sociologists in this canon. According to the authors, early sociologists focused primarily on society and left culture, at best, implied. Subsequent thinkers, such as cultural theorists, recognized the importance of paying attention to both. Despite the shortsightedness of early sociologists, their work is forgiven on account of its early, and as such, unsophisticated nature. Their inclusion into the canon allows them to continue exerting influence on modern, sociological developments.
Culture in Critical and Sociological Thought
Indigenous Cultures and Sustainable Development in Latin America, 2020
Classical thought on culture and development was not all functionalist. Large critical traditions of thought emerged in the eighteenth century, and these would inform many later theories of international development. Marxian and Gramscian theories are discussed in this chapter, as are early sociological contributions from thinkers such Weber, Parsons, Veblen, and others.
The Origins and Perspectives of ‘Culture’—Is it Relevant Anymore?
Human Arenas, 2020
This paper argues that ‘culture’ is a crucial element of humans’ mental developmental dynamics and traces various threads of explorations of the concept of ‘culture’ and aims to contribute to its systemic understanding. Culture has been represented predominantly as external to a person or as something that is at the same time inside and outside of the mind by the various streams of Cartesian social sciences. The latter theoretical stances led to the essentialization, ‘entification’ and objectification of the concept/phenomenon. The systemic approach is proposed in order to more adequately reflect the relational organization of individuals, societies and cultures. ‘Culture’ should be understood as an entirety of relational processes of sense-making of experiences that are self-centred, intentional and future-oriented, however, always rooted in historically constructed sociocultural systems. Cultural elements and individuals are indissolubly and meaningfully linked and defined in relation to each other. Interaction between people and cultural elements is dialogical and is organized in intransitive hierarchical structures. The systemic approach to the cultural and semiotic dynamics allows us to understand how patterns of signs, meanings and behaviours are constructed through the past historical process and in relation to the anticipated short-term and distant future. ‘Culture’ is everywhere wherever and whenever human relates to or anticipates real or imaginary ‘other’, or whenever s/he constructs or interprets any ‘objectified’ sign. It is considered as the systemic totality of the processes of meaningful relating to others that is the basis for affectively charged meaning-making processes. The self-definition is possible only through ‘Culture’.
Culturalism as Hegemonic Ideology and Liberating Practice
Cultural Critique, 1987
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 128.223.174.227 on Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:06:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Place of Culture in Relational Sociology
article, 2017
Margaret S. Archer and Pierpaolo Donati have independently devel- oped relational approaches in the social sciences. Combining morphoge- netic theory and the relational theory of society opens up new research perspectives. This article attempts to investigate relational conceptions of culture by answering two questions: one related to the nature of culture and the other to the place of culture in relational sociology. Assuming the complementarity of the theories of both sociologists, the possibility that their conceptions may be inconsistent or even contradict each other is not discounted. The article discusses the issue of symbolization and the presence of processes of semiosis within relational sociology. It is argued that apart from the Cultural System and the Socio-Cultural interaction as- sumed by Archer’s analytical dualism, a more general category of Cultural Reality can be introduced. This theme is further discussed in the light of Donati’s views on human reality; he postulates including the relational frame of symbolization. Analysis shows that culture occupies a central place in relational sociology. This article exposes the complexity of the nature of culture in human reality.