Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Making sense of 'culture'
I found both articles that we read this week both challenging and insightful. The first was confusing for me to follow, but nonetheless, offered an interesting outlook of culture that seemed very relevant to our discussion in class last week. I did find it slightly ironic that his main point was that culture is ordinary and accessible, and that education too should be accessible, however his style of writing was so complex that it seems like it could only be truly digested by a very specific, and well educated sector of society. The second article also made interesting points, but was so infused with jargon and theory that it too was hard to follow at times. It is interesting that while culture is something that is experienced by everyone and infused in both the identity of the individual and of a larger society, it remains a concept that is very difficult to define. These articles attempted to broaden our notions of what culture is. I think that both articles aimed to suggest that culture is not something that exists in a far away, out of reach, elite, or 'tribal' sector of society, but rather, as something experienced by everyone all the time. Culture is defined in everyday encounters. This brought me back to the discussion we had in class about the differences between 'high culture' and 'popular culture.' It made me reflect upon my own culture, American culture, and question: what is more telling of American culture? Fast-food, hip-hop and Hollywood, or fine literature, fine arts, and free jazz? Is it possible that both categories are definitive of culture only in different ways? I think that this relates to the Keesing article in the sense that when we look at different societies in an attempt to better understand their cultures, we have a tendency to 'other' them and create binaries and contained categories of what elements of culture we perceive as 'valid,' and what elements we overlook altogether. "...this pursuit of the exotic Other is still a persistent theme, and "culture" is a powerful device for its perpetuation" (6). We have a tendency to reduce cultures to a set of artifacts that we consider to be 'authentic,' often leaving out the more everyday and 'ordinary' elements that also define culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great blog entry. I really like how you pointed out the irony in the first article, about how Williams describes culture as ordinary and for everyone and yet writes in such a way that not everyone can comprehend. This is something that didn't occur to me while reading the article. I also enjoyed the questions you posed about American culture, and what elements are most representative and "authentic". I suppose that all the elements you mentioned, from fast-food to fine arts, can be considered a part of American culture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how the author always try to say how ordinary culture is, and yet talks a lot about not so ordinary things like Cambridge, also I agree that is hard to follow, also because most of us are not British. I think is great how you point the authors' purpose trying to explain how ordinary culture is and how is all around us.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Williams reading was hard to follow, and was also perturbed by his tone. His elevated writing style negates his point, that culture is ordinary and created by all persons within a society. If culture is so ordinary, then why would his commentary on it only make sense to the well-educated social sectors? I think that these articles not only attempt to broaden our notions of what culture is, but also, what it is not, as they criticize the approaches often utilized to study it. I thought it was interesting that you commented on American culture, and I think that the idea of what defines a culture is largely biased (depending on whom you ask and what point they are trying to make). Your point on othering reminds me of our class discussion on Canadian culture. Many people described Canadian culture as being extremely different from the American other, whereas having lived in both cultures, I feel that these society’s predominant value systems are far more similar than different. This discussion also made me think about how one cannot regard a culture as one-sided, and must consider varying subgroups and counter-cultures.
ReplyDeletehi Emily, I was actually thinking about the strong difference between the two articles after class. As Professor Beasley-Murray commented, isn't it interesting that our 'so-called' educated minds are trained and more prone to think in terms of the complex? In other words, why did most of the students actually find Kessing's article more engaging, when Williams' narration is more simple to follow and engages with the common culture, art, education, and so forth... I too started to read Williams and ended up jumping straight to Kessings to later come back to his article. Where does the ordinary stand in the academia, does it go beyond a material of interest and study? how we can find creative ways to engage the ordinary of culture in active learning at university? m.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you when you point out that culture is ordinary. Most of the time when we think about culture, we think about high culture, being cultivated but as Williams has shown in his article, culture is "ordinary", daily.
ReplyDelete