life styles

December 14, 2008

“Way of life” redirects here. For other uses, see Way of life (disambiguation).

Lifestyle was originally coined by Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler in 1929. The current broader sense of the word dates from 1961.[1]

In sociology, a lifestyle is the way a person lives. A lifestyle is a characteristic bundle of behaviors that makes sense to both others and oneself in a given time and place, including social relations, consumption, entertainment, and dress. The behaviors and practices within lifestyles are a mixture of habits, conventional ways of doing things, and reasoned actions. A lifestyle typically also reflects an individual’s attitudes, values or worldview. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are entirely voluntaristic. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self.[2]

The lines between personal identity and the everyday doings that signal a particular lifestyle become blurred in modern society.[3] For example, “green lifestyle” means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller carbon footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities. Some commentators argue that, in Modernity, the cornerstone of lifestyle construction is consumption behavior, which offers the possibility to create and further individualize the self with different products or services that signal different ways of life.[4]Contents [hide]
1 Politics
2 Advertising and marketing
3 Euphemism
4 References
5 Bibliography

[edit]
Politics

The term lifestyle in politics can often be used in conveying the idea that society be accepting of a variety of different ways of life—from the perspective that differences among ways of living are superficial, rather than existential. Lifestyle is also sometimes used pejoratively, to mark out some ways of living as elective or voluntary as opposed to others that are considered mainstream, unremarkable, or normative.

Within anarchism, lifestylism is the view that an anarchist society can be formed by changing one’s own personal activities rather than by engaging in class struggle.

[edit]
Advertising and marketing

In business, “lifestyles” provide a means by which advertisers and marketers endeavor to target and match consumer aspirations with products, or to create aspirations relevant to new products. Therefore marketers take the patterns of belief and action characteristic of lifestyles and direct them toward expenditure and consumption. These patterns reflect the demographic factors (the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic levels and so on) that define a group. As a construct that directs people to interact with their worlds as consumers, lifestyles are subject to change by the demands of marketing and technological innovation.

taboo

December 14, 2008

Taboo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)

This article is about cultural prohibitions in general; for other uses, see Taboo (disambiguation).
For the Polynesian religious concept (from which the word taboo is derived), see Tapu.

A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) against words, objects, actions, or discussions that are considered undesirable or offensive by a group, culture, society, or community. Breaking a taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent. Some taboo activities or customs are prohibited by law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other taboos result in embarrassment, shame and rudeness.Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Examples
3 Origin
3.1 Steven Pinker (anthropological/biological)
3.2 Sigmund Freud (psychoanalytical)
4 Taboo on the dead
4.1 Examples
4.1.1 Corpses
4.1.2 Mourners
4.1.3 Naming the dead
4.2 Origins and causes
4.2.1 Artists
5 Taboo on rulers
5.1 Examples
6 Taboo on warriors
6.1 Examples
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links

[edit]
Etymology

Common etymology traces the word back to the Tongan tapu[1][2] or the Fijian tabu[3] meaning “under prohibition”, “not allowed”, or “forbidden”.[3] In its modern use in Tonga, the word tapu also means “sacred” or “holy”, although often in the sense of being restricted or protected by custom or by law. For example, the main island in the Kingdom of Tonga, where the capital Nuku’alofa is situated and most of the population resides, is called “Tongatapu”. In this context, it means “Sacred South”, rather than “forbidden south”.

The use of the word taboo drawn from tapu (meaning “not allowed”) dates back to 1777 and an English explorer, Captain James Cook, visiting a place he named “the Friendly Islands” (now Tonga). Describing the Tongans, he wrote:
“Not one of them would sit down, or eat a bit of any thing…. On expressing my surprise at this, they were all taboo, as they said; which word has a very comprehensive meaning; but, in general, signifies that a thing is forbidden…. When any thing is forbidden to be eat, or made use of, they say, that it is taboo.”[4]

Some Solomon Islanders say that their languages have a word tabu (pronounced “tam-boo”) that means holy. It refers to places in the bush where holy spirits reside (usually marked with an object, such as a giant clam shell or stone carving). Those areas should not be disturbed unless a ceremony is taking place, therefore they are places that should not be touched.

[edit]
Examples

Taboos can include:
usually talking about sex, anything relating to death, in regards to hygiene and cleanliness, rebellion against authority, questioning ones’ theology, discrimination, group stereotypes; and homicide in all kinds are the greatest taboos in human nature.
dietary restrictions (halal and kosher diets, religious vegetarianism, and the prohibition of cannibalism).
restrictions on sexual activities, gender roles and interpersonal relationships (examples include homosexuality and paraphilias such as fornication, adultery, interreligious marriage, miscegenation, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and polygamy).
restrictions of bodily functions (burping, flatulence, defecation, urination, masturbation, nosepicking, and spitting) in public. Also, the requirement in some societies for women (or the whole society) to be secretive about menstruation and in some cases, pregnancy and childbirth.
restrictions on state of genitalia (circumcision or sex reassignment) and discussion of “private parts”.
restrictions on exposure of body parts (pornography and nudity) and any exhibitionism.
taboos on illicit drugs, substance abuse and addictions to legal drugs such as alcohol (alcoholism).
restrictions on the use of offensive language also known as obscenity and vulgarity.
restriction on gestures.
taboo on slavery and domestic violence, any domination of one group over another.
restrictions on controversial topics (law, morality, ethics, manners, politics, religion, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, handicaps, class, creed, ones’ occupation, finances, and groups of people as a whole).
in western etiquette as in “proper society” or “in the public”, it’s taboo (or bad etiquette) to discuss ones’ personal affairs or bring up negative subjects.

Some taboos originated by acts of authority, be it legal, social or religious, over a period of time. When not in “polite society”, discussions on taboos are allowed in humorous expression, such as comedy and satire (the majority being animated shows catering to mature adults): like South Park, Family Guy, The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead and Drawn Together.

[edit]
Origin

There are varying explanations for the origin of taboos. While some explanations are anthropological and explain taboos using history and cultural experiences, other explanations are psychoanalytical and explain taboos as an unconscious phenomenon passing through generations.

[edit]
Steven Pinker (anthropological/biological)

Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works suggests that taboos have developed culturally from more basic instincts. With regard to taboos regarding the dead, he proposes that the human brain has evolved a hard-wired repulsion to many carriers of disease – an “intuitive microbiology”. Only with the modern development of scientific microbiology have humans been able to rationalize these taboos. Pinker suggests similar explanations for the incest taboo and other things that cause the reflex emotion of disgust.

[edit]
Sigmund Freud (psychoanalytical)

Sigmund Freud provided an analysis of taboo behaviours, highlighting strong subconscious motivations driving such prohibitions. In this system, described in his collection of essays Totem and Taboo, Freud postulates a link between forbidden behaviours and the sanctification of objects to certain kinship groups. Freud also states here that the only two “universal” taboos are that of incest and patricide, which formed the eventual basis of modern society.

German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt explains that taboos were originally nothing other than an objectified fear of a “demonic” power which was believed to lie hidden in a tabooed object.[5] Sigmund Freud believes this to be a superficial explanation having nothing to do with the true origins of taboos. He claims that many similarities between taboo-holders and obsessive neurotics point to “a psychological condition that prevails in the unconscious”.[6] Freud believes this “unconsciousness” is central to understanding the history of taboos. He then reconstructs the history of taboo based on the model of obsessional prohibitions as follows:
“Taboos, we must suppose, are prohibitions of primæval antiquity which were at some time externally imposed upon a generation of primitive men; they must, that is to say, no doubt have been impressed on them violently by the previous generation. These prohibitions must have concerned activities towards which there was a strong inclination. They must then have persisted from generation to generation, perhaps merely as a result of tradition transmitted through parental and social authority.”[7]

And so, “Anyone who has violated a taboo becomes taboo himself because he possesses the dangerous quality of tempting others to follow his example.”[8]

[edit]
Taboo on the dead
Main article: Taboo on the dead

The ‘taboo’ on the dead includes the taboo against touching of a corpse and those who are caring for it; the taboo against mourners of the dead; and the taboo against anything associated with the dead (e.g., the dead person’s name).

During the Victorian Age (19th century), esp. the UK and the US, attitudes toward death along with sexuality and a huge emphasis on Christian morality and social etiquette, was very stringent and any discussion or jokes about death was hailed a serious (and sacreligious) taboo, in part of the mourning process and death promotes “mental” graphic imagery. The era came to an end in the early 1900′s when ignorance (without science) and perfectionism of others’ conduct (cultural chauvinism against “uneducated” classes or “heathen” people) is no longer the main focus of life in Britain and North America.

[edit]
Examples

[edit]
Corpses
Among the Māori anyone who had handled a corpse or taken any part in its burial was in the highest degree unclean and was almost cut off from social intercourse with his fellow-men. He could not enter any house, or come into contact with any person or thing without infecting them. He might not even touch food with his hands, which, owing to their uncleanness, had become quite useless. “Food would be set for him on the ground, and he would then sit or kneel down, and, with his hands carefully held behind his back, would gnaw at it as best he could. In some cases he would be fed by another person, who with outstretched arm contrived to do it without touching the tabooed man.” The mourners of the dead were also secluded from the public. When their period of mourning was near completion, “all the dishes he had used in his seclusion were diligently smashed, and all the garments he had worn were carefully thrown away.”[9]

[edit]
Mourners
Among the Shuswap of British Columbia widows and widowers in mourning are secluded and forbidden to touch their own head or body; the cups and cooking vessels which they use may be used by no one else. [...] No hunter would come near such mourners, for their presence is unlucky. If their shadow were to fall on anyone, he would be taken ill at once. They employ thorn-bushes for bed and pillow, in order to keep away the ghost of the deceased; and thorn bushes are also laid all around their beds.[10]
Among the Agutainos, who inhabit Palawan, one of the Philippine Islands, a widow may not leave her hut for seven or eight days after the death; and even then she may only go out at an hour when she is not likely to meet anybody, for whoever looks upon her dies a sudden death. To prevent this fatal catastrophe, the widow knocks with a wooden peg on the trees as she goes along, thus warning people of her dangerous proximity; and the very trees on which she knocks soon die.”[11]

[edit]
Naming the dead
Main article: Taboo against naming the dead

The taboo on naming the dead prohibits any utterance of a dead man’s name or any other words similar to it in sound. Some examples follow:
Among the Guaycurus of Paraguay, when a death had taken place, the chief used to change the name of every member of the tribe; and from that moment everybody remembered his new name just as if he had borne it all his life.[12]
After a Yolngu man named Bitjingu died, the word bithiwul “no; nothing” was avoided.[13] In its place, a synonym or a loanword from another language would be used for a certain period, after which the original word could be used again; but in some cases the replacement word would continue to be used.

[edit]
Origins and causes

Sigmund Freud traces back the origin of the dangerous character of widowers and widows to the danger of temptation. A man who has lost his wife must resist a desire to find a substitute for her; a widow must fight against the same wish and is moreover liable to arouse the desires of other men. Substitutive satisfactions of such a kind run counter to the sense of mourning and they would inevitably kindle the ghost’s wrath.[14]

Freud explains that the fundamental reason for the existence of such taboos is the fear of the presence or of the return of the dead person’s ghost. It is exactly this fear that leads to a great number of ceremonies aimed at keeping the ghost at a distance or driving him off.[15]

The Tuaregs of Sahara, for example, dread the return of the dead man’s spirit so much that “[they] do all they can to avoid it by shifting their camp after a death, ceasing for ever to pronounce the name of the departed, and eschewing everything that might be regarded as an evocation or recall of his soul. Hence they do not, like the Arabs, designate individuals by adding to their personal names the names of their fathers. [...] they give to every man a name which will live and die with him.”[16] In many cases the taboo remains intact until the body of the dead has completely decayed,[17] but until then the community must disguise itself so that the ghost shall not recognize them. For example, the Nicobar Islanders try to disguise themselves by shaving their heads.[18]

[edit]
Artists

Artists that have worked with the theme of death include Bill Viola, Damien Hirst, Lennie Lee and Joel-Peter Witkin.

Psychologist Wilhelm Wundt associates the taboo to a fear that the dead man’s soul has become a demon.[19] Moreover, many cases show a hostility toward the dead and their representation as malevolent figures.[20] Edward Westermarck notes that “Death is commonly regarded as the gravest of all misfortunes; hence the dead are believed to be exceedingly dissatisfied with their fate [...] such a death naturally tends to make the soul revengeful and ill-tempered. It is envious of the living and is longing for the company of its old friend.”[21]

[edit]
Taboo on rulers
Main article: Taboo on rulers

[edit]
Examples
The Nubas of East Africa believe that they would die if they entered the house of their priestly king; however they can evade the penalty of their intrusion by baring the left shoulder and getting the king to lay his hands on it.[22]
In West Africa, in the woods of Shark Point near Cape Padron, in Lower Guinea, a priestly king named Kukulu once lived alone. Forbidden from touching a woman or leaving his house, or even leaving his chair, in which he would sleep, the natives feared that if he lay down no wind would rise and navigation would be stopped.[23]
The ancient kings of Ireland were subject to a number of strange restrictions as listed in The Book of Rights. The king, for instance, may not stay in a certain town on a particular day of the week; he may not cross a river on a particular hour of the day; he may not encamp for nine days on a certain plain, and so on.[24]

[edit]
Taboo on warriors

[edit]
Examples

Restrictions placed on a victorious slayer are unusually frequent and as a rule severe.[25]
In Timor, the leader of the expedition is forbidden “to return at once to his own house. A special hut is prepared for him, in which he has to reside for two months, undergoing bodily and spiritual purification. During this time he may not go to his wife nor feed himself; the food must be put in his mouth by another person.”[26]
In some Dyak tribes, men returning from a successful expedition are obliged to keep to themselves for several days and abstain from various kinds of food; they may not touch iron nor have any intercourse with women.[27]
In Logea, an island in the neighborhood of New Guinea, “men who have killed or assisted in killing enemies shut themselves up for about a week in their houses. They must avoid all intercourse with their wives and friends, and they may not touch food with their hands. They may eat vegetable food only which is brought to them cooked in special pots. The intention of these restrictions is to guard the men against the smell of the blood of the slain; for it is believed that if they smelt the blood they would fall ill and die.
In the Toaripi or Motumotu tribe of south-eastern New Guinea a man who has killed another may not go near his wife, and may not touch food with his fingers. He is fed by others, and only with certain kinds of food. These observances last till the new moon

culture

December 14, 2008

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate”)[1] generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Cultures can be “understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another”.[2]

Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called “the way of life for an entire society.”[3] As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, games, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art.

Cultural anthropologists most commonly use the term “culture” to refer to the universal human capacity and activities to classify, codify and communicate their experiences materially and symbolically. Scholars have long viewed this capacity as a defining feature of humans (although some primatologists have identified aspects of culture such as learned tool making and use among humankind’s closest relatives in the animal kingdom).[4]

Farhang culture has always been the focal point of Iranian civilization. Painting of Persian women musicians from Hasht-Behesht Palace (“Palace of the 8 heavens.”)

Ancient Egyptian art.Contents [hide]
1 Culture concept(s)
1.1 Culture and anthropology
1.2 Culture as civilization
1.3 Culture as worldview
1.4 Culture as symbols
2 Cultures within a society
3 Cultures by region
4 Belief systems
4.1 Abrahamic religions
4.2 Eastern religion and philosophy
4.3 Folk religions
4.4 The “American Dream”
4.5 Marriage
5 Cultural studies
6 Cultural change
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links

Culture concept(s)

Culture and anthropology

Nineteeth century anthropologist Edward Tylor was one of the first English-speaking scholars to use the term culture in anthropology.

Culture is manifested in human artifacts and activities such as music, literature, lifestyle, food, painting and sculpture, theater and film.[5] Although some scholars identify culture in terms of consumption and consumer goods (as in high culture, low culture, folk culture, or popular culture),[6] anthropologists understand “culture” to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes which produce such goods and give them meaning, and to the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes become embedded. For them, culture thus includes art, science, as well as moral systems.

Various definitions of culture reflect differing theories for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Writing from the perspective of social anthropology in the UK, Tylor in 1874 described culture in the following way: “Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”[7]

Rock engravings in Gobustan, Azerbaijan indicate a thriving culture dating around 10,000 BC.

More recently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) (2002) described culture as follows: “… culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”.[8]

While these two definitions cover a range of meaning, they do not exhaust the many uses of the term “culture.” In 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of “culture” in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.[9]

These definitions, and many others, provide a catalog of the elements of culture. The items catalogued (e.g., a law, a stone tool, a marriage) each have an existence and life-line of their own. They come into space-time at one set of coordinates and go out of it another. While here, they change, so that one may speak of the evolution of the law or the tool.

A culture, then, is by definition at least, a set of cultural objects. Anthropologist Leslie White asked: “What sort of objects are they? Are they physical objects? Mental objects? Both? Metaphors? Symbols? Reifications?” In Science of Culture (1949), he concluded that they are objects “sui generis”; that is, of their own kind. In trying to define that kind, he hit upon a previously unrealized aspect of symbolization, which he called “the symbolate”—an object created by the act of symbolization. He thus defined culture as “symbolates understood in an extra-somatic context.”[10] The key to this definition is the discovery of the symbolate.

Culture as civilization

The famous “El Castillo” (The castle), formally named “Temple of Kukulcan”, in the archeological city of Chichén-Itzá, in the state of Yucatán, Mexico.

Many people have an idea of “culture” that developed in Europe during the 18th and early 19th centuries. This notion of culture reflected inequalities within European societies, and between European powers and their colonies around the world. It identifies “culture” with “civilization” and contrasts it with “nature.” According to this way of thinking, one can classify some countries and nations as more civilized than others, and some people as more cultured than others. Some cultural theorists have thus tried to eliminate popular or mass culture from the definition of culture. Theorists such as Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) or the Leavisites regard culture as simply the result of “the best that has been thought and said in the world.”[11] Arnold contrasted mass/popular culture with social chaos or anarchy. On this account, culture links closely with social cultivation: the progressive refinement of human behavior. Arnold consistently uses the word this way: “…culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world.”[11]

In practice, culture referred to élite activities such as museum-caliber art and classical music, and the word cultured described people who knew about, and took part in, these activities. These are often called “high culture”, namely the culture of the ruling social group,[12] to distinguish them from mass culture and or popular culture.

From the 19th century onwards, some social critics have accepted this contrast between the highest and lowest culture, but have stressed the refinement and sophistication of high culture as corrupting and unnatural developments that obscure and distort people’s essential nature. On this account, folk music (as produced by working-class people) honestly expresses a natural way of life, and classical music seems superficial and decadent. Equally, this view often portrays Indigenous peoples as ‘noble savages’ living authentic unblemished lives, uncomplicated and uncorrupted by the highly-stratified capitalist systems of the West.

Today most social scientists reject the monadic conception of culture, and the opposition of culture to nature. They recognize non-élites as just as cultured as élites (and non-Westerners as just as civilized)—simply regarding them as just cultured in a different way.

Williams[13] argues that contemporary definitions of culture fall into three possibilities or mixture of the following three:
“a general process of intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic development”
“a particular way of life, whether of a people, period, or a group”
“the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity”.

Culture as worldview

During the Romantic era, scholars in Germany, especially those concerned with nationalist movements — such as the nationalist struggle to create a “Germany” out of diverse principalities, and the nationalist struggles by ethnic minorities against the Austro-Hungarian Empire — developed a more inclusive notion of culture as “worldview.” In this mode of thought, a distinct and incommensurable worldview characterizes each ethnic group. Although more inclusive than earlier views, this approach to culture still allowed for distinctions between “civilized” and “primitive” or “tribal” cultures.

By the late 19th century, anthropologists had adopted and adapted the term culture to a broader definition that they could apply to a wider variety of societies. Attentive to the theory of evolution, anthropologists such as Franz Boas assumed that all human beings evolved equally, and that the fact that all humans have cultures must in some way result from human evolution. They also showed some reluctance to use biological evolution to explain differences between specific cultures — an approach that either exemplified a form of, or segment of society vis a vis other segments and the society as a whole, they often reveal processes of domination and resistance.

In the 1950s, subcultures — groups with distinctive characteristics within a larger culture — began to be the subject of study by sociologists. The 20th century also saw the popularization of the idea of corporate culture — distinct and malleable within the context of an employing organization or a workplace.

Culture as symbols

An album leaf painting by Ming artist Chen Hongshou (1598–1652) depicting nature scenes. The Chinese viewed painting as a key element of high culture.

The symbolic view of culture, the legacy of Clifford Geertz (1973) and Victor Turner (1967), holds symbols to be both the practices of social actors and the context that gives such practices meaning. Anthony P. Cohen (1985) writes of the “symbolic gloss” which allows social actors to use common symbols to communicate and understand each other while still imbuing these symbols with personal significance and meanings.[14] Symbols provide the limits of cultured thought. Members of a culture rely on these symbols to frame their thoughts and expressions in intelligible terms. In short, symbols make culture possible, reproducible and readable. They are the “webs of significance” in Weber’s sense that, to quote Pierre Bourdieu (1977), “give regularity, unity and systematics to the practices of a group.”[15] Thus, for example:
“Stop, in the name of the law!”—Stock phrase uttered to the antagonists by the sheriff or marshal in 20th century American Old Western films
Law and order—stock phrase in the United States
Peace and order—stock phrase in the Philippines
Ordnung muss sein / Order must be — stock phrase in the Germany, Austria

Cultures within a society

Large societies often have subcultures, or groups of people with distinct sets of behavior and beliefs that differentiate them from a larger culture of which they are a part. The subculture may be distinctive because of the age of its members, or by their race, ethnicity, class, or gender. The qualities that determine a subculture as distinct may be aesthetic, religious, occupational, political, sexual, or a combination of these factors.

In dealing with immigrant groups and their cultures, there are various approaches:
Leitkultur (core culture): A model developed in Germany by Bassam Tibi. The idea is that minorities can have an identity of their own, but they should at least support the core concepts of the culture on which the society is based.
Melting Pot: In the United States, the traditional view has been one of a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention.
Monoculturalism: In some European states, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants, although recent increases in migration have led many European states to experiment with forms of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism: A policy that immigrants and others should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation.

The way nation states treat immigrant cultures rarely falls neatly into one or another of the above approaches. The degree of difference with the host culture (i.e., “foreignness”), the number of immigrants, attitudes of the resident population, the type of government policies that are enacted, and the effectiveness of those policies all make it difficult to generalize about the effects. Similarly with other subcultures within a society, attitudes of the mainstream population and communications between various cultural groups play a major role in determining outcomes. The study of cultures within a society is complex and research must take into account a myriad of variables.

Cultures by region
Main article: Culture by region

Regional cultures of the world occur both by nation and ethnic group and more broadly, by larger regional variations. Similarities in culture often occur in geographically nearby peoples. Many regional cultures have been influenced by contact with others, such as by colonization, trade, migration, mass media, and religion. Culture is dynamic and changes over time. In doing so, cultures absorb external influences and adjust to changing environments and technologies. Thus, culture is dependent on communication. Local cultures change rapidly with new communications and transportation technologies that allow for greater movement of people and ideas between cultures.[16]

Belief systems
Main article: Religion

The main entrance to the Angkor Wat temple proper, seen from the eastern end of the Naga causeway. Founded in the 12th century, the temple appears today on the flag of Cambodia.

Religion and other belief systems are often integral to a culture. Religion, from the Latin religare, meaning “to bind fast”, is a feature of cultures throughout human history. The Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion defines religion in the following way:

… an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality.[17]

Religion often codifies behavior, such as with the Ten Commandments of Christianity or the five precepts of Buddhism. Sometimes it is involved with government, as in a theocracy. It also influences arts.

Western culture spread from Europe most strongly to Australia, Canada, and the United States. It is influenced by ancient Greece, ancient Rome and Christianity. Western culture tends to be more individualistic than non-Western cultures. It also sees man, god, and nature or the universe more separately than non-Western cultures. It is marked by economic wealth, literacy, and technological advancement, although these traits are not exclusive to it.

Abrahamic religions

Judaism is one of the first, recorded monotheistic faiths and one of the oldest religious traditions still practiced today. The values and history of the Jewish people are a major part of the foundation of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, as well as the Bahá’í Faith. However, while sharing a heritage from Abraham each has distinct arts (visual and performance arts and the like). Of course some of these are regional influences among the nations the religions are present in, but there are some norms or forms of cultural expression distinctly emphasized by the religions.

Christianity has been important to European and New World cultures for at least the last 500 to 1,700 years. Modern philosophical thought has very much been influenced by Christian philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus and Christian Cathedrals have been noted as architectural wonders like Notre Dame de Paris, Wells Cathedral, and Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral.

Islam has had influence over much of the North African, Middle and Far East regions for almost 1,500 years, sometimes mixed with other religions. For example, Islam’s influence can be seen in diverse philosophies such as Ibn Bajjah, Ibn Tufail, Ibn Khaldun, and Averroes as well as poetic stories and literature like Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, The Madman of Layla, The Conference of the Birds, and the Masnavi in addition to art and architecture such as the Umayyad Mosque, Dome of the Rock, Faisal Mosque, and the many styles of Arabesque. Judaism and the Bahá’í faiths are usually minority religions among the nations but still have made distinctive contributions to the cultures of the nations and regions.

The mainstream anthropological 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.[18]

Eastern religion and philosophy
Main articles: Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion

A statue in Bangalore, India depicting Siva meditating.

Philosophy and religion are often closely interwoven in Eastern thought. Most of the Asian religious and philosophical traditions originated in India and China and spread across Asia through cultural diffusion and the migration of peoples. Hinduism is the wellspring of Buddhism, the Mahāyāna branch of which spread north and eastwards from India into Tibet, China, Mongolia, Japan, and Korea and south from China into Vietnam. Theravāda Buddhism spread throughout Southeast Asia, including Sri Lanka, parts of southwest China, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand.

Indian philosophy includes Hindu philosophy. Both contain elements of nonmaterial pursuits, whereas another school of thought from India, Cārvāka, preached the enjoyment of material world. Confucianism and Taoism, both of which originated in China have had pervasive influence on both religious and philosophical traditions, as well as statecraft and the arts throughout Asia. Sikhism, founded in India during the 16th and 17th centuries, is a monotheistic religion with a belief in one, universal, non-anthropomorphic God.

During the 20th century, in the two most populous countries of Asia, two dramatically different political philosophies took shape. Gandhi gave a new meaning to Ahimsa, a core belief of both Hinduism and Jainism, and redefined the concepts of nonviolence and nonresistance far beyond the confines of India. During the same period, Mao Zedong’s communist philosophy became a powerful secular belief system in China. Increasingly Christianity is gaining a foothold in Chinese culture, developing heretofore unforeseen changes in both Christianity and Chinese culture.

Folk religions
Main article: Folk religion

Folk religions practiced by tribal groups are common in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Their influence can be considerable; may pervade the culture and even become the state religion, as with Shintō. Like the other major religions, folk religion answers human needs for reassurance in times of trouble, healing, averting misfortune, and providing rituals that address the major passages and transitions in human life.

The “American Dream”

The American Dream is a belief, held by many in the United States, that through hard work, courage, and self-determination, regardless of social class, a person can gain a better life.[19] This notion is rooted in the belief that the United States is a “city upon a hill, a light unto the nations,”[20] which were values held by many early European settlers and maintained by subsequent generations.

Marriage

Religion often influences marriage and practices.

Marriage occurs in most cultures, though specific customs vary widely. Marriage is difficult to define cross-culturally because cultures define family, love, parenthood, gender roles, etc., differently. Cross-culturally, one’s motivation to get married and expectations of it, therefore, vary widely. In some cultures, marriages are conducted very much like business transactions, in others they are deeply sentimental.

Cultural studies

Cultural studies developed in the late 20th century, in part through the re-introduction of Marxist thought into sociology, and in part through the articulation of sociology and other academic disciplines such as literary criticism. This movement aimed to focus on the analysis of subcultures in capitalist societies. Following the non-anthropological tradition, cultural studies generally focus on the study of consumption goods (such as fashion, art, and literature). Because the 18th- and 19th-century distinction between “high” and “low” culture seems inappropriate to apply to the mass-produced and mass-marketed consumption goods which cultural studies analyses, these scholars refer instead to “popular culture”.

Cultural change

A 19th century engraving showing Australian “natives” opposing the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1770.

Cultures are internally affected by both forces encouraging change and forces resisting change. These forces are related to both social structures and natural events, and are involved in the perpetuation of cultural ideas and practices within current structures, which themselves are subject to change[21]. (See structuration.)

Social conflict and the development of technologies can produce changes within a society by altering social dynamics and promoting new cultural models, and spurring or enabling generative action. These social shifts may accompany ideological shifts and other types of cultural change. For example, the U.S. feminist movement involved new practices that produced a shift in gender relations, altering both gender and economic structures. Environmental conditions may also enter as factors. Changes include following for the film local hero. For example, after tropical forests returned at the end of the last ice age, plants suitable for domestication were available, leading to the invention of agriculture, which in turn brought about many cultural innovations and shifts in social dynamics[22].

Cultures are externally affected via contact between societies, which may also produce — or inhibit — social shifts and changes in cultural practices. War or competition over resources may impact technological development or social dynamics. Additionally, cultural ideas may transfer from one society to another, through diffusion or acculturation. In diffusion, the form of something (though not necessarily its meaning) moves from one culture to another. For example, hamburgers, mundane in the United States, seemed exotic when introduced into China. “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. Diffusion of innovations theory presents a research-based model of why and when individuals and cultures adopt new ideas, practices, and products.

Acculturation has different meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of another, such has happened to certain Native American tribes and to many indigenous peoples across the globe during the process of colonization. Related processes on an individual level include assimilation (adoption of a different culture by an individual) and transculturation.

Sense of time is highly dependent on culture. This photograph was taken in 1913 but can be difficult to date for a Western viewer, due to the absence of cultural cues. (This photo was originally b/w. Digital color composite made for the Library by Blaise Agüera y Arcas, 2004; Digital color rendering, with hand editing, made by WalterStudio, 2000-2001.)

Cultural invention has come to mean any innovation that is new and found to be useful to a group of people and expressed in their behavior but which does not exist as a physical object. Humanity is in a global “accelerating culture change period”, driven by the expansion of international commerce, the mass media, and above all, the human population explosion, among other factors. (See The Third Wave.)

SOCIETY

December 14, 2008

A society is a population of humans characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture and/or institutions. More broadly, a society is an economic, social and industrial infrastructure, in which a varied multitude of people are a part of. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society may be a particular people, such as the Saxons, a nation state, such as Bhutan, or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society.The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purpose. Sociology is the scientific, or academic, study of society and human behavior.Contents [hide]
1 Origin and usage
2 Evolution of societies
3 Characteristics of society
4 Social networks
5 Organization of society
5.1 Shared belief or common goal
6 Ontology
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links

[edit]
Origin and usage

The English word “society” emerged in the 15th century and is derived from the French société. The French word, in turn, had its origin in the Latin societas, a “friendly association with others,” from socius meaning “companion, associate, comrade or business partner.” The Latin word is probably related to the verb sequi, “to follow”, and thus originally may have meant “follower”.

In political science, the term is often used to mean the totality of human relationships, generally in contrast to the State, i.e., the apparatus of rule or government within a territory:

I mean by it [the State] that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power… I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man…[1]

In the social sciences such as sociology, society has been used[citation needed]to mean a group of people that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group. Society is sometimes contrasted with culture. For example, Clifford Geertz has suggested that society is the actual arrangement of social relations while culture is made up of beliefs and symbolic forms.

According to sociologist Richard Jenkins, the term addresses a number of important existential issues facing people:
How humans think and exchange information – the sensory world makes up only a fraction of human experience. In order to understand the world, we have to conceive of human interaction in the abstract (i.e., society).
Many phenomena cannot be reduced to individual behavior.
Collectives often endure beyond the lifespan of individual members.
The human condition has always meant going beyond the evidence of our senses; every aspect of our lives is tied to the collective.[2]

[edit]
Evolution of societies

A half-section of the 12th century Song Dynasty version of Night Revels of Han Xizai, original by Gu Hongzhong; the painting, which is a masterpiece of the era’s artwork, portrays servants, musicians, monks, children, guests, hosts all in a single societal environment, serves as an in-depth look into 10th-century Chinese social structure.

According to anthropologist Maurice Godelier, one critical novelty in human society, in contrast to humanity’s closest biological relatives (chimpanzees and bonobo), is the parental role assumed by the males, which were unaware of their “father” connection[clarification needed].[3][4]

Gerhard Lenski, a sociologist, differentiates societies based on their level of technology, communication and economy: (1) hunters and gatherers, (2) simple agricultural, (3) advanced agricultural, (4) industrial.[5] and now (5) virtual. This is somewhat similar to the system earlier developed by anthropologists Morton H. Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, who have produced a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:
Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.
Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige.
Stratified structures led by chieftains.
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.

In addition to this there are:
Humanity, mankind, that upon which rest all the elements of society, including society’s beliefs.
Virtual-society is a society based on online identity, which is evolving in the information age.

Over time, some cultures have progressed toward more-complex forms of organization and control. This cultural evolution has a profound effect on patterns of community. Hunter-gatherer tribes settled around seasonal foodstocks to become agrarian villages. Villages grew to become towns and cities. Cities turned into city-states and nation-states.[6]

Today, anthropologists and many social scientists vigorously oppose the notion of cultural evolution and rigid “stages” such as these. In fact, much anthropological data has suggested that complexity (civilization, population growth and density, specialization, etc.) does not always take the form of hierarchical social organization or stratification.

Also, cultural relativism as a widespread approach/ethic has largely replaced notions of “primitive,” better/worse, or “progress” in relation to cultures (including their material culture/technology and social organization).

[edit]
Characteristics of society

The following three components are common to all definitions of society:
Social networks
Criteria for membership, and
Characteristic patterns of organization

Each of these will be explored further in the following sections.

[edit]
Social networks
Main article: Social network

Social networks are maps of the relationships between people. Structural features such as proximity, frequency of contact and type of relationship (e.g., relative, friend, colleague) define various social networks.

[edit]
Organization of society
Main article: Social organization

Human societies are often organized according to their primary means of subsistence. As noted in the section on “Evolution of societies”, above, social scientists identify hunter-gatherer societies, nomadic pastoral societies, horticulturalist or simple farming societies, and intensive agricultural societies, also called civilizations. Some consider industrial and post-industrial societies to be qualitatively different from traditional agricultural societies.

One common theme for societies in general is that they serve to aid individuals in a time of crisis. Traditionally, when an individual requires aid, for example at birth, death, sickness, or disaster, members of that society will rally others to render aid, in some form—symbolic, linguistic, physical, mental, emotional, financial, medical, or religious. Many societies will distribute largess, at the behest of some individual or some larger group of people. This type of generosity can be seen in all known cultures; typically, prestige accrues to the generous individual or group. Conversely, members of a society may also shun or scapegoat members of the society who violate its norms. Mechanisms such as gift-giving and scapegoating, which may be seen in various types of human groupings, tend to be institutionalized within a society. Social evolution as a phenomenon carries with itself certain elements that could be detrimental to the population it serves.

Some societies will bestow status on an individual or group of people, when that individual or group performs an admired or desired action. This type of recognition is bestowed by members of that society on the individual or group in the form of a name, title, manner of dress, or monetary reward. Males, in many societies, are particularly susceptible to this type of action and subsequent reward, even at the risk of their lives. Action by an individual or larger group in behalf of some cultural ideal is seen in all societies. The phenomena of community action, shunning, scapegoating, generosity, and shared risk and reward occur in subsistence-based societies and in more technology-based civilizations.

Societies may also be organized according to their political structure. In order of increasing size and complexity, there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies. These structures may have varying degrees of political power, depending on the cultural geographical, and historical environments that these societies must contend with. Thus, a more isolated society with the same level of technology and culture as other societies is more likely to survive than one in closer proximity to others that may encroach on their resources (see history for examples}. A society that is unable to offer an effective response to other societies it competes with will usually be subsumed into the culture of the competing society (see technology for examples).

[edit]
Shared belief or common goal

People of many nations united by common political and cultural traditions, beliefs, or values are sometimes also said to be a society (such as Judeo-Christian, Eastern, and Western). When used in this context, the term is employed as a means of contrasting two or more “societies” whose members represent alternative conflicting and competing worldviews (see Secret Societies).

Some academic, learned and scholarly associations describe themselves as societies (for example, the American Mathematical Society). More commonly, professional organizations often refer to themselves as societies (e.g., the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Chemical Society). In the United Kingdom and the United States, learned societies are normally nonprofit and have charitable status. In science, they range in size to include national scientific societies (i.e., the Royal Society) to regional natural history societies. Academic societies may have interest in a wide range of subjects, including the arts, humanities and science.

In some countries (for example the United States and France), the term “society” is used in commerce to denote a partnership between investors or the start of a business. In the United Kingdom, partnerships are not called societies, but cooperatives or mutuals are often known as societies (such as friendly societies and building societies). In Latin America, the term society may be used in commerce denoting a partnership between investors, or anonymous investors; for example: “Proveedor Industrial Anahuac S.A.” where S.A. stands for Anonymous Society (Sociedad Anónima); however in Mexico in other type of partnership it would be declared as S.A. de C.V. or S.A. de R.L., indicating the level of commitment of capital and the responsibilities from each member towards their own association and towards the society in general and supervised by the corresponding jurisdictional civil and judicial authorities

SOCIETY

December 14, 2008

A society is a population of humans characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture and/or institutions. More broadly, a society is an economic, social and industrial infrastructure, in which a varied multitude of people are a part of. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society may be a particular people, such as the Saxons, a nation state, such as Bhutan, or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society.

The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purpose. Sociology is the scientific, or academic, study of society and human behavior.Contents [hide]
1 Origin and usage
2 Evolution of societies
3 Characteristics of society
4 Social networks
5 Organization of society
5.1 Shared belief or common goal
6 Ontology
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links

[edit]
Origin and usage

The English word “society” emerged in the 15th century and is derived from the French société. The French word, in turn, had its origin in the Latin societas, a “friendly association with others,” from socius meaning “companion, associate, comrade or business partner.” The Latin word is probably related to the verb sequi, “to follow”, and thus originally may have meant “follower”.

In political science, the term is often used to mean the totality of human relationships, generally in contrast to the State, i.e., the apparatus of rule or government within a territory:

I mean by it [the State] that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power… I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man…[1]

In the social sciences such as sociology, society has been used[citation needed]to mean a group of people that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group. Society is sometimes contrasted with culture. For example, Clifford Geertz has suggested that society is the actual arrangement of social relations while culture is made up of beliefs and symbolic forms.

According to sociologist Richard Jenkins, the term addresses a number of important existential issues facing people:
How humans think and exchange information – the sensory world makes up only a fraction of human experience. In order to understand the world, we have to conceive of human interaction in the abstract (i.e., society).
Many phenomena cannot be reduced to individual behavior.
Collectives often endure beyond the lifespan of individual members.
The human condition has always meant going beyond the evidence of our senses; every aspect of our lives is tied to the collective.[2]

[edit]
Evolution of societies

A half-section of the 12th century Song Dynasty version of Night Revels of Han Xizai, original by Gu Hongzhong; the painting, which is a masterpiece of the era’s artwork, portrays servants, musicians, monks, children, guests, hosts all in a single societal environment, serves as an in-depth look into 10th-century Chinese social structure.

According to anthropologist Maurice Godelier, one critical novelty in human society, in contrast to humanity’s closest biological relatives (chimpanzees and bonobo), is the parental role assumed by the males, which were unaware of their “father” connection[clarification needed].[3][4]

Gerhard Lenski, a sociologist, differentiates societies based on their level of technology, communication and economy: (1) hunters and gatherers, (2) simple agricultural, (3) advanced agricultural, (4) industrial.[5] and now (5) virtual. This is somewhat similar to the system earlier developed by anthropologists Morton H. Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, who have produced a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:
Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.
Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige.
Stratified structures led by chieftains.
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.

In addition to this there are:
Humanity, mankind, that upon which rest all the elements of society, including society’s beliefs.
Virtual-society is a society based on online identity, which is evolving in the information age.

Over time, some cultures have progressed toward more-complex forms of organization and control. This cultural evolution has a profound effect on patterns of community. Hunter-gatherer tribes settled around seasonal foodstocks to become agrarian villages. Villages grew to become towns and cities. Cities turned into city-states and nation-states.[6]

Today, anthropologists and many social scientists vigorously oppose the notion of cultural evolution and rigid “stages” such as these. In fact, much anthropological data has suggested that complexity (civilization, population growth and density, specialization, etc.) does not always take the form of hierarchical social organization or stratification.

Also, cultural relativism as a widespread approach/ethic has largely replaced notions of “primitive,” better/worse, or “progress” in relation to cultures (including their material culture/technology and social organization).

[edit]
Characteristics of society

The following three components are common to all definitions of society:
Social networks
Criteria for membership, and
Characteristic patterns of organization

Each of these will be explored further in the following sections.

[edit]
Social networks
Main article: Social network

Social networks are maps of the relationships between people. Structural features such as proximity, frequency of contact and type of relationship (e.g., relative, friend, colleague) define various social networks.

[edit]
Organization of society
Main article: Social organization

Human societies are often organized according to their primary means of subsistence. As noted in the section on “Evolution of societies”, above, social scientists identify hunter-gatherer societies, nomadic pastoral societies, horticulturalist or simple farming societies, and intensive agricultural societies, also called civilizations. Some consider industrial and post-industrial societies to be qualitatively different from traditional agricultural societies.

One common theme for societies in general is that they serve to aid individuals in a time of crisis. Traditionally, when an individual requires aid, for example at birth, death, sickness, or disaster, members of that society will rally others to render aid, in some form—symbolic, linguistic, physical, mental, emotional, financial, medical, or religious. Many societies will distribute largess, at the behest of some individual or some larger group of people. This type of generosity can be seen in all known cultures; typically, prestige accrues to the generous individual or group. Conversely, members of a society may also shun or scapegoat members of the society who violate its norms. Mechanisms such as gift-giving and scapegoating, which may be seen in various types of human groupings, tend to be institutionalized within a society. Social evolution as a phenomenon carries with itself certain elements that could be detrimental to the population it serves.

Some societies will bestow status on an individual or group of people, when that individual or group performs an admired or desired action. This type of recognition is bestowed by members of that society on the individual or group in the form of a name, title, manner of dress, or monetary reward. Males, in many societies, are particularly susceptible to this type of action and subsequent reward, even at the risk of their lives. Action by an individual or larger group in behalf of some cultural ideal is seen in all societies. The phenomena of community action, shunning, scapegoating, generosity, and shared risk and reward occur in subsistence-based societies and in more technology-based civilizations.

Societies may also be organized according to their political structure. In order of increasing size and complexity, there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies. These structures may have varying degrees of political power, depending on the cultural geographical, and historical environments that these societies must contend with. Thus, a more isolated society with the same level of technology and culture as other societies is more likely to survive than one in closer proximity to others that may encroach on their resources (see history for examples}. A society that is unable to offer an effective response to other societies it competes with will usually be subsumed into the culture of the competing society (see technology for examples).

[edit]
Shared belief or common goal

People of many nations united by common political and cultural traditions, beliefs, or values are sometimes also said to be a society (such as Judeo-Christian, Eastern, and Western). When used in this context, the term is employed as a means of contrasting two or more “societies” whose members represent alternative conflicting and competing worldviews (see Secret Societies).

Some academic, learned and scholarly associations describe themselves as societies (for example, the American Mathematical Society). More commonly, professional organizations often refer to themselves as societies (e.g., the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Chemical Society). In the United Kingdom and the United States, learned societies are normally nonprofit and have charitable status. In science, they range in size to include national scientific societies (i.e., the Royal Society) to regional natural history societies. Academic societies may have interest in a wide range of subjects, including the arts, humanities and science.

In some countries (for example the United States and France), the term “society” is used in commerce to denote a partnership between investors or the start of a business. In the United Kingdom, partnerships are not called societies, but cooperatives or mutuals are often known as societies (such as friendly societies and building societies). In Latin America, the term society may be used in commerce denoting a partnership between investors, or anonymous investors; for example: “Proveedor Industrial Anahuac S.A.” where S.A. stands for Anonymous Society (Sociedad Anónima); however in Mexico in other type of partnership it would be declared as S.A. de C.V. or S.A. de R.L., indicating the level of commitment of capital and the responsibilities from each member towards their own association and towards the society in general and supervised by the corresponding jurisdictional civil and judicial authorities


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.