I just came across a post in the Atlantic discussing Finnish education. My question is regarding the “15 or so cultural benchmarks that differentiate societies”. What exactly are they. Can anyone list them?
I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
“We’re too eager to borrow from other societies without analyzing the source. Finland has different norms and values. For instance, their concepts of chronics (time) and proxemics (closeness), differ from North Americans, who, in turn, have different concepts of chronics and proxemics from Mexicans, Irish, Greeks, and Filipinos.
And these are only two of the 15 or so cultural benchmarks that differentiate societies.
So what works in Finland might not work here, simply because of the different societal mindset.
Before Malcolm Gladwell rushes to publish a book about the Importance of breaks in primary education and before large city school systems institute mandatory 15-minute breaks every 120,minutes, let’s examine the idea a little more fully.”
Remember when there was always an email address, through which one could query the by-lined author of an article? Gone. Now, they are insulated, and all you can do is follow them on twitter, along with 2,738 other people. No need for authors to responsible for anything they say anymore.
I’m sure we can identify some “benchmarks” that would “differentiate” societies as the articles claims. The real problem, however, is the presumption by whoever made the post that they are immutable and monolithic. The faulty thinking that often comes up in this type of discussion is that culture is static and imposed upon people by some kind of invisible outside force. In fact we are continually reconstituting, rejecting or mutating these cultural benchmarks in time, with every action we take.
Yes guizot I agree. But in the off-chance that there are that many benchmarks (more or fewer), I would like to know what they are. it’s certainly worth researching.
From the context, it would seem that by “cultural benchmarks which differentiate socieities” he’s taking about a fairly basic set of values or understandings which influence how we experience our environment and our relationships, and which therefore influence the kind of society we build for ourselves. He mentions proxemics (how we use the space around us, and expect others to use it) and chronics (how we structure and value the passage of time) and from that it’s reasonable to infer that other similar “cultural benchmarks” might be how and when we touch one another (haptics) and how we communicate meaning not so much by language as by how how we modify language (paralanguage). Where the number 15 comes from, I have no idea. This stuff is meat and drink to cultural anthropologists, I believe, so maybe if one of them stumbles on this thread . . .
From an anthropological standpoint (and its a very wide field) under which rubric would these benchmarks fall under. So far I’ve looked at non-verbal communication proxemics, chronics, haptics, paralanguage, kinesics. Where else within anthropology could I look for so-called benchmarks?
Well, Ornery Bob points to one possibility; dietary taboos.
The problem, as OB points out, is that what is said give us no idea how a particular characteristic that might distinguish societies is judged to be fundamental enough to be classed as a “benchmark”. Distinguishing characteristics between societies are almost limitless, and in some cases almost limitlessly trivial. Do they greet with a handshake or a kiss? And, if a kiss, is it a single peck, or two, three or four pecks on alternating cheeks?
Here’s a slideshow that lists the following nonverbal categories - kinesics, oculesics, proxemics, haptics, vocalics, objectics, chronemics, olfactics, gustorics:
Well, yeah, but all the stuff about “cultural benchmarks” is not from the article itself at all, but from one of the comments, which, in fact, the OP quotes in full.This is hardly an authoritative source - it may be little more than bullshitting - and the implication of American uniqueness, and the inapplicability of the experience of foreigners, reeks, to me, of right-wing talking points, such as those heard during the healthcare debate as to why UHC would never work in America.
I suspect this is someone quoting the categories usually given for nonverbal communication, which include kinesics, oculesics, proxemics, haptics, vocalics, objectics, chronemics, olfactics, gustorics, paralinguistics, and physical appearance. Maybe someone can find another four categories for this list. I don’t think the stuff I’ve found online about nonverbal communication sounds very well defined or useful.
I’m sure I found it last night, but the OP’s quote can no longer be found in the OP’s link. Even googling “cultural benchmarks that differentiate societies” gets only one hit – this forum. So what is the origin of this quote?
Oh, I found it now – you have to keep clicking “see more comments”.
I suspect these benchmarks are the equivalent of the “15 or so senses”, beside sight, hearing, etc.
Perhaps slightly OT, but IIRC in “Guns, Germs, and Steel” Jarod Diamond described four(?) levels of human societies, ranging from 'Family" up to “Nation”. The topic he was discussing was that only at the largest, Nation, was there a concept of going to war and giving one’s life to defend the group. Perhaps that could be considered a differentiating characteristic.
Really? :dubious: Had he never heard of blood-feuds between families? I do not know what other levels he listed, but intermediate sized groupings such as clans and tribes also often go to war against one another. Sub-national entities also sometimes engage in “civil wars”.
I have heard it said that the more people actually know about anthropology or history, the less respect they tend to have for Jared Diamond’s views.
You seem to be talking about Chapter 14, “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy.” He does describe four types of societies: Band, Tribe, Chiefdom, and State. The point he makes is somewhat different from your description (and radically different from njtt’s interpretation).
He says that only in the past 6000 or so years are people willing to fight “suicidally.” That’s not the same as being willing to fight, and possibly to die in battle. It’s the understanding that you are literally cannon fodder, that you will die as part of the sheer bulk of numbers overwhelming the enemy rather than from any individual heroic action that you can make. It’s this that he cites as being a break with previous human history, but while this break is especially associated with the State, he says that it appears under Chiefdoms. (pp 281-2)
As for syphillis, he says that its origins are controversial and that it was first definitely recorded in Europe in 1495. (p210, 212) Both statements appear to be factual.
I have my own problems with Diamond on issues where we researched the same source material and came away with differing opinions, but it’s not fair to blame him for things he never said.
I think that the comment quoted in the OP (and it was just an online comment on an article, not part of the article itself) is pulling together two things. First, the idea of a “cultural benchmark,” which is a pretty vague thing. I’ve found various writings online which treat it as if it were a useful notion. They mean something like “something which defines a culture and distinguishes from other cultures,” but there doesn’t seem to be any real definition of the term. Second, the comment takes the terms “proxemics” and “chronemics” (which is misspelled as “chronics”) from the terminology of nonverbal communication. There’s no place that I can find a list of precisely 15 such things. Basically then, that comment was just an off-the-top-of-his-head observation from someone with no idea what they were talking about. Ignore it.