Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (Wendy Griswold), Schemi e mappe concettuali di Sociologia

Scarica Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (Wendy Griswold) e più Schemi e mappe concettuali in PDF di Sociologia solo su Docsity! Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (Wendy Griswold) CHAPTER 1: CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL DIAMOND TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT CULTURE -when sociologists talk about culture they usually mean one of 5 things: >norms> the way people behave in a given society >values> what they hold dear >beliefs> how they think the universe operates >expressive symbols> representations of the previous ones >practices> people’s behaviour patterns -distinction between society and culture >culture> designates the expressive aspects of human existence >society> designates the relational aspect “The Best That Has Been Thought and Known” -culture carries implications of high social status, superior and universal worth (humanities disciplines) >separation of culture from everyday life and its ability to influence human behaviour >traditional humanities viewpoint -cultivation of the mind and sensibility -culture opposes civilization => harmony between society and culture is rarely achieved -culture must be preserved since is fragile and can be lost -invests it with the aura of sacred, removing it from everyday existence -in the 19th century> opposition between culture and civilization (technological advances of the Industrial revolution)>> was a protest against Enlightenment thinking, against the belief in progress, against ugly aspects of industrialization >culture was seen as opposite to this -culture was “a study of perfection”; could make civilization more human by restoring “sweetness and light” -beauty of culture comes from >awareness of and sensitivity to “the best that has been thought and known” in art, literature… >”a right reason” (open-minded and tolerant intelligence) -educational potential >enables people to relate knowledge >can cure social ills of materialism; can be the humanizing agent that moderates the destructive impacts of modernization “That Complex Whole” -German philosopher Herder> we must speak of cultures (not culture) since nations and communities have their own equally meritorious cultures -sociologist Peter Berger defines culture> “the totality of man’s products, both material and immaterial” >society itself is part and parcel of non-material culture -viewing culture as a people’s entire way of life avoids ethnocentrism and elitism that the humanities-based definition falls prey to> BUT lacks precision >Wutnow and Witten> suggest to distinguish between implicit (hard to spot and study) and explicit (eg. veil worn by a Muslim woman) culture >>can be preliminary classification in sorting out the many definitions of culture -social scientists tend to see harmony between culture and society (“close-fit assumption”) >functionalism (branch of social theory that identifies culture as the values that direct the social system) >>any misfit between culture and society would be dysfunctional >Marxism> cultural products rest on an economic foundation -example of this assumption > Peter Berger’s analysis of culture as formed through externalization (project experiences onto outside world), objectification (regard projections as independent) and internalization (incorporate projections into psychological consciousness) -anthropologist Clifford Geerts> culture as an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life CONNECTIONS: THE LINKS BETWEEN CULTURE AND SOCIETY -culture refers to the expressive side of human life (behavior, objects, ideas that express something else) -community’s culture influences its social structure and vice versa -to examine cultural phenomena and their relation to social life is needed a conceptual framework and conceptual tools> cultural object The Cultural Object -cultural object defined as> shared significance embodied in form> a socially meaningful expression that is audible, visible, tangible or that can be articulated >each cultural object tells a story THE CULTURAL DIAMOND -cultural object are made by human beings > creators -other people besides their creators experience cultural objects > object’s audience/recipients >only when objects become public they enter the circuit of human discourse, enter the culture and become cultural objects -both audience and creators are anchored in a particular context > social world (economic, political, social and cultural patterns and exigencies that occur at any particular point in time) >cultural sociology centers on the relationship between cultural objects and social world >>this attention to differentiate cultural sociology from cultural studies (1st difference) -(2nd difference) methodological >cultural sociology depends more on empirical methods and the analysis of evidence >cultural studies is purely interpretative -cultural diamond> arrange the 4 elements (cultural object, social world, creator, receiver) in the shape of a diamond and draw line connecting them >it is an accounting device intended to encourage a fuller understanding of any cultural object’s relationship to the social world (shows there is a relationship) >a complete understanding of a given cultural object requires understanding of all four points and six links >once we sense how that cultural object fits into its context we can understand the culture as a whole SUMMARY In this chapter, we learned the variety of uses for the term culture and how the term applies to ephemeral aspects of experience and to deeply held values for which people are willing to die. We compared the humanities’ approach to culture with that of the social sciences and suggested that a full understanding of the relationship between culture and -according to Aristotle> culture tells about the kind of thing that happens to human beings> this may be restated in terms specific to a given society >reflection theory becomes an attractive model for the sociological understanding of culture (for 2 reasons) -idea that “culture reflects society” provides a model of the connection between culture and society -this model allows for the use of culture as social evidence -essence of functionalism> human societies have needs to maintain themselves; social institutions arise to meet these needs>> healthy society -failures of fit are described as dysfunctional >every social level reflects or adapt to every other level> culture reflects society just as society reflects culture -”social evidence” point (idea that we can read a society through its cultural works) often misleads >cultural objects can both emphasize less favorable aspects (form of social criticism) or idealize aspects of social experience >>mirror model (is how an individual views themselves or self-reflects based on the current social norms and beliefs of their group) is hard to swallow -art historian Michael Baxandall> suggest a way for the reflection model to represent all the points and links of the diamond >studies 15th century Italian paintings and how those reflect: -commercial transactions> contract between painter and client (horizontal line of diamond) -changing values> more important pictorial skills in paintings rather than pigments; new concern with taste, still reflecting class position -the “period eye”> emphasizes the cultural constructedness of vision, characterizes a set of viewing norms, and charts the manner in which artists responded to these norms in their works >culture is mediated through the minds of human beings -through culture human beings may reflect on their individual and social experience CULTURE AND MEANING IN WEBERIAN SOCIOLOGY -both the functionalist and the Marxian version of reflection theory recognize that culture and social structure exert mutual influence on one another >but both tend to emphasize a causal arrow that goes in one direction >society causes culture -but if people need meanings to organize their lives> culture must make something happen >as Max Weber underlines -Weber> tried to understand the modern world, especially industrial, capitalist society >did not think culture simply caused social structure> knew that influence worked both ways -interested in> extent to which religion participated in the formation and expansion of the spirit of capitalism> sought correlations between religious beliefs and practical behaviours The Anxious Protestants and the World They Built -The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism he notes how the West is unique in many respects >its specialized science and arts >its highly trained officials >its rational law >its capitalist economic system involving “the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise” -people have always desired acquisition> unique to West is >the capitalist organization of human labor >the separation of business from the household >the dominance of rational bookkeeping -so the real problem is not the origin of capitalism> but the ascendancy of bourgeois capitalism with its rational organization of free labor -he wanted to explore the side of the causal chain involving how an economic spirit reflected a set of religious ideas >Weber considered the spirit of capitalism as involving an ethic or duty> Benjamin Franklin “Time is money” >this spirit of capitalism stood in sharp contrast to the traditional attitude of people working only to live according to custom -2 Protestant religious ideas ● Calling, Martin Luther (particular vocation to which God has called every person) >pursuit of one’s vocation, or one’s calling is a way of serving God >gives moral justification to worldly activity ● Predestination, John Calvin (at the beginning of time, God destined every individual for heaven or hell) >people could do nothing to change their destinies >such a harsh doctrine would produce a feeling of inner loneliness for those who believed in it >Calvinists responded to the psychological pressure by becoming obsessed with seeking hints regarding whether they were destined for salvation >clergy made one suggestion> “one might gain self-confidence in one’s heavenly destination through worldly activity” -Weber saw the Puritan as a man >concerned with monitoring his own state of grace >engaged in endless moral bookkeeping and the methodical Christianization of his life >who labored hard in his calling but did not spend or enjoy his profits >who could never rest (complacency might signify damnation) -such a pattern of behavior had 2 results >built up the capital of those who practiced it (all unspent profits were available for investment) >developed an attitude toward hard work as a “good thing” for its own sake The Cultural Switchman -in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Weber showed how a set of religious ideas influenced the way people order their economic lives -famous metaphor> he compared the role of culture to that of a railroad switchman(controllore): “Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men’s conduct. Yet very frequently the “world images” that have been created by “ideas” have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest.” -Weberian model that social action reflects cultural meanings> has directed much sociological research, especially attempts to explain broad social change -Jack Goldstone> the Western religious tradition was linear and eschatological (indaga il destino ultimo di individui e universo)> when a change occurred (eg. coming of the Messiah) it was once and for all >>evolutionary action made sense in this meaning system> for history has a direction; total transformations are possible, and things can get better -instead Easter religions> view history as cyclical (encouraged a return to previous forms of authority) -the “switchman” operates at the individual level as well >conservative Protestants tend to accumulate less wealth because they adhere to a model of stewardship (money is not your own but the Lord’s) that demands that they give their money away freely >Roman Catholics accumulate more wealth because they have strong family orientations that demand they save and make only low-risk investments -mirror metaphor> can mislead if it is taken too literally and excludes other points of the cultural diamond> however it can reveal significant parallels between cultural objects and their social world MEANING SYSTEMS OR A TOOL KIT? -classical views> emphasize a close relationship between culture and human activity >but in recent years this assumption has come under sharp attack >many sociologists argue that the culture/social world connections are loose and that cultures are more fragmented than coherent -2 general critiques of the Weberian culture-and-meaning position >it is too subjective (requires sociologists to get inside people’s head, but culture should be an observable behavior rather than a subjective system) >observations show that people behave in contradictory ways and that their cultures do not steer them -Ann Swidler> maintains that cultures are more like tool kits than switchmen >they contain rationales underlying various lines of action, but these rationales are not internally coherent -people have multiple cultural repertoires, and they use them more as bases for “echolocation” than as some restrictive road map >by the end of the twentieth century, many cultural sociologists had come to accept this more fragmented model of culture MEANING, MODERNITY, AND THE CLASH OF CULTURES -conflict between Muslims and the Judeo-Christian West> have stained the opening pages of the twenty-first century with blood >all of these horrific events seem to offer evidence of a “coherent” culture rooted in the Islamic world -Samuel Huntington (1995)> since the end of the Cold War the fault lines in the contemporary world have become more cultural than economic or political -a number of civilizations rooted in different religious cultures interpret the world very differently> these different interpretations produce fundamental conflicts over meanings >particularly problematic is the gap between the beliefs, goals, and values of the Islamic arc and the West-Europe and North America >>Huntington’s thesis of a war between civilizations based on different cultural foundations -many sociologists think it is oversimplified and obfuscated >translate Huntington’s ideas into a binary image of culture wars would be a mistake> it would assume that Islamic cultures are any more coherent than other cultures -twenty-first century assertions of religious and ethnic particularism are robust >failure of modernity to realize its goal of enlightened humanism -sociology’s founding fathers (Marx, Durkheim, and Weber) all envisioned a modern society in which things we received at birth (skin color, family, religion…) would matter less and less >a society where positions were filled by individual merit and where everything was clear and efficient >>for good or ill, society has not experienced the expected transformations> affinities of race persist and religion has not faded aways -modernity itself has prompted strong cultural reactions in 2 directions ● postmodernism >culture of contemporary society >post-industrial stage of social development dominated by media images, in which people connect with other places through proliferating channels of information >postmodern person is characterized by a cool absence of illusion >postmodern minds are cynical ● social consequences of religion >since religion provides the source of the classifications through which we apprehend the world> all of human culture becomes a representation of the social Culture as Collective Representation -Durkheim’s analysis of religion points to all cultural objects as collective representations -functionalist thread> groups and societies need collective representations of themselves to inspire sentiments of unity and mutual support (and culture fulfills this need) -for Durkheim> culture is a collective representation in 2 senses ● cultural objects (painting, social movement, a song…) >are created not by individuals, BUT by people bound to other people >even songs about individual pain represent also group experience ● cultural products >people represent their experiences of work, pain, love >creators produce “a tune beyond us, yet ourselves” THE COLLECTIVE PRODUCTION OF CULTURE -applying Durkheim’s insights constitutes> collective production approach to cultural meanings >approach tries to take away the mystery about the creation of culture by revealing the many social activities (interactions, coopeations…) involved in the creation of cultural objects -collective production theory has 2 sides >one involves the interactions among people and how these interactions themselves generate culture (from symbolic interactionism) >one looks less at interactions and more at the organization of cultural producers and consumers (cultural industries, markets for cultural products…) Symbolic Interactionism -symbolic interactionism> concerns how people actively construct and learn their norms and roles -the human self is shaped through social interaction >Charles Horton Cooley> “looking-glass self” -according to Cooley> interaction comprises 3 phases: 1. the self imagines another’s response to one’s behavior or appearance 2. the self imagines the other person’s judgment 3. the self has an emotional reaction (such as of pride or shame) to that judgment -all social learning does not take place through two-person interactions >George Mead pointed out that the developing child has 2 phases: >first learns to take the role of another person> “play” stage (the child plays at being a teacher or plays with an imaginary friend >later comes the more complicated one> “game” stage (the child learns to take on and take into account a variety of other roles) -symbolic interactionism suggests that human interactions create culture -identity is a key concept for the symbolic interactionist approach >one’s own identity or sense of self develops through interaction with others and requires confirmation from others -cultural position as distinct from the biological one Subcultures -people belong not simply to a single group or community but to a variety of them -Mead identified two types: ● abstract social groups > such as debtors >function as social groups only indirectly ● concrete social classes or subgroups >such as political parties, clubs, and corporations >are all actually functioning social units, in terms of which of their individual members are directly related to one another -if these relations to one another prove strong enough to counteract some of the influences of the societal generalized other> the group becomes a subculture -subculture exists within a larger cultural system and has contact with the external culture -within the subculture’s domain operates a powerful set of symbols, meanings, and behavioral norms that bind the subculture’s members> often the opposite of those in the larger culture (not consumption tastes but way of life) -sociology’s interest in subcultures began in the early twentieth century with the Chicago School of urban studies >contemporary scholarship often focuses on more permanent subcultures such as those associated with professions -subcultures, with their elaborate symbols and meanings> develop by people interacting with one another> great interest to sociologists oriented toward symbolic interactionism -not any event or object can undergo transformation into a cultural object >for a symbol or expression to enter the idioculture, it must: >draw on known information >be functional >be usable >be appropriate >be triggered repeatedly -subcultures also interact with and perpetuate one another CULTURAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE -many social movements start out as subcultures -however cultural response to social change need not take the dramatic form of a secret society or revolutionary movement Cultural Lags and Leads -if culture passively reflects the social world> change must come from that world first >so innovations in music, art… must all be responses to social changes -“cultural lag” hypothesis William Ogburn> maintained that sociologists should distinguish between ● “material culture” >home, factories, machines, raw materials, manufactured products… ● “adaptive culture” >practices, folkways, and social institutions >when material culture changes> the nonmaterial culture must change in response -adaptive culture comprises the portion of nonmaterial culture that adjusts to material conditions -Ogburn believed that changes in the material culture usually precede changes in the adaptive culture -but the idea that culture always lags behind material change goes against our experience with dramatic cultural change -we need to understand cultural innovation, where culture seems to lead, not lag behind, social change Cultural Innovations -the collective production approach to culture suggests that innovations may occur randomly and unpredictably, some patterns as evident: ● certain periods prove more likely to generate innovations than others >common point is that under certain conditions (massive demographic shift, war, or sudden economic change)the old rules, cultural and social, no longer apply >people cast around for new guidelines, new meanings with which to orient their lives ● even the innovations follow some conventions >cultural creators typically respond to conventions rather than ignore them >Becker distinguished four types of artists: >the integrated professionals> perpetuate the conventions of their own particular art world >the mavericks> ostentatiously defy the art world’s conventions, but the key point is that only those who know the conventions in the first place can recognize their very unconventionality >the naive artists> only they, since not attached to a collective production world, may be said to innovate without regard for convention, but their very lack of connections makes the work of such artists virtually unknown> thus their innovations have neither audience nor influence >the folk artists> follow the conventions of their craft ● certain innovations prove more likely than others to become established >cultural creators may produce something new, but not all such innovations will become established SUMMARY In this chapter, we traced some sociological theories of the creation of culture. We saw how sociologists followed Durkheim in regarding culture as collective product or representation rather than as exclusively the work of individual creators. Cultural objects, by this reasoning, express aspects of the social world and are produced by the collective activities of members of this world. We saw how interactions among people create new cultural objects—practices, beliefs, symbols, and expressions—and how such cultural objects bestow meanings on the human experience. We saw how cultural innovation, creating new meaning, occurs at the microlevel of subcultures and the macro level of ideological shifts. We saw that creativity, along with its recognition and its establishment, depends on social conventions and social institutions. So far, we have concentrated on creators of culture on the one hand and the social world on the other. We have paid only minimal attention to two things: the audience or recipients of culture (the right point on our culture diamond) and the organizations of production and distribution that tie all of the points together. Yet we have seen in the example of Bessie Smith the vitality of organizations and audiences to any understanding of cultural creations as collective representation. The next chapter discusses these two—the right point of our cultural diamond and the organization as links among creators, receivers, and cultural objects.