Ahh yes, the old post-modern navel gazing saw about defining something clinically and then denying it’s existence. yawn
If you cannot understand the point about fads based around trinkets vs culture then I’ve got not interest in continuing. Culture exists it’s a commonly used term and more post-modern debasement of language is just more wasting of everyone’s time.
So according to you, why are things like bedding several girls at once and bell bottoms either not important or not worth “saving” while other things are? I mean, who decides if it’s just a fad or if it’s “culture”?
When a tradition stops being passed on, doesn’t it become just a longer-lived fad? Why is it no big deal if something lasts only a short time, and great when something keeps being passed on forever, but worth getting upset over if it lasts more than a short time but not forever?
It’s decided kind of democratically. If it’s taken up for a summer and forgotten about it’s a fad. If parents pass it to child, or teachers to students for generations, it’s culture.
When culture is no longer passed on, that is as much of a democratic decision too.
Well if you think having different words to elucidate temporal distinctions are irrelevant then sure. But then a cookie is just a sweet cracker right? Why have different words? A car is just a cart with an engine.
I find people get upset over things in relationship to its impact on their lives. If a girl has bell bottoms for a week and they get ripped and soiled she whines for a day or two and forgets it. If a village makes a particular type of pottery for 200 years out of the special clay in their village and that clay runs out or they are outcompeted by a factory in a different country, they mourn for it a little bit longer.
I never argued any differently. As I’ve said, the Austrians are democratically choosing not to breed.
Enough do that the Amish population is soaring.
Haredim are growing even faster
I am proud to be in the same category as Left Hand of Dorkness; those that mswas has decided not to talk to.
And the Amish are moving into small businesses because there isn’t enough land for subsistence farming. So their lifestyle is changing rapidly.
Haredim commit violence against their own to keep them in line.
Just because they are growing demographically doesn’t mean their ideology doesn’t evolve.
You don’t allow for enough nuance. You want to lump things that are superficially similar into the same categories. Really there is no merit to the notion that culture doesn’t exist or that fashion trends are on the same level as traditional transmission over the generations.
It’s just an incredibly unsophisticated position and doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for discussion. Trying to deny the existance of something that is meaningful to billions of people doesn’t really make for a reasonable position.
I basically agree with this sentiment. Culture exists in the world of ideas. Ideas are very important. If you went to Washington and burned the Constitution, it would still exist because the Constitution is more than just a piece of paper. It’s an idea (or set of ideas).
Another idea which is part of most cultures is that it’s wrong to steal. If that idea disappeared tomorrow, the country would quickly descend into chaos. There simply aren’t enough police or jails to deal with it if suddenly everyone thought stealing wasn’t wrong.
The concept of credit is another abstract idea which is very important. It’s just an abstract concept, but it’s very important. One could say “credit doesn’t exit,” but it’s a bit silly. Again, without a concept of credit, the country would be a lot worse off.
:shrug: They have been religious for quit a while and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Certainly one incident of internecine violence doesn’t undermine my point.
Well the violence wasn’t meant to undermine your point as much as point out that there isn’t quite as totalitarian an adherence to a solitary ideal as it would seem. Though you pointed to the extreme edges also. In my family on both sides there are Democrats and Republicans in a single family.
Thanks for the post above too.
I don’t see anyone trying to deny the existence of culture; they just differ from you on the definition of the term culture. Can you say “excluded middle” Essentially, you seem to be employing the Dogbert style of debate; you wave your paw and say “bah” as a response.
No one seriously denies that culture exists, in the sense of claiming that there is nothing referred to by the word “culture”. What LHoD was pointing out was that culture is an institutional fact, not a brute one.
Of course, no one seriously disagrees with that either. But the reason LHoD was making the reminder was in order to make the point that changes in culture are not, in themselves, lamentable the way changes in the health of a person would be.
At times, mswas agrees with this, and reasonably says it is only from a subjective point of view that such changes are sad, for those who happened to prefer the way things used to be, the way I might be sad if Kelloggs stops manufacturing my favorite cereal in favor of another much more popular one.
At other times, though… well, mswas says things suggesting that it is a regrettable state of affairs that hip-hop music has become popular worldwide even in areas which once preferred other forms of music, that modern pop culture has exerted large influence over the East Village to the displacement of something else, that children often voluntarily choose to adopt some traditions other than their parents and, in so doing, do not pass their parents’ traditions on to their own children, tosses in comments about hopping from girl’s bed to girl’s bed oblivious to one’s own slow suicide, etc. The tone here is hard to reconcile with “But, hey, I’m just talking about my own idiosyncratic tastes”.
Anyway, whatever. It’s not like anything good is coming from arguing about it. I’m bowing out.
What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about any of that. That’s a serious distortion of what I said.
I said I was bowing out, and so I will, but I will address just this last post: You feel I’ve distorted your words, and I may have, but not on purpose. The relevant posts from which I took them are, in order, #60, #57, and especially the last part of #86, with its clear sarcasm. My interpretation of your tone was also influenced significantly by post #54. You may claim that you never actually literally said certain cultural changes were bad, as such, but I would argue in response that such a stance is disingenuous; one does not consistently use such phrasing as “death”, “demise”, “destruction”, etc., without being aware of the tone this transmits (as commented upon by Chessic Sense in post #79, and documented again in post #81, though this only re-quotes many of the above).
Yes. European Classical Music is in no danger of dying out. Objecting to the color or the gender of the musicians would be naked racism and/or sexism.
Culture is not genetic.
Who is objecting?
Man you people have bigotry on the brain. It’s interesting that you can’t talk about culture without people talking about bigotry. Chinese musicians playing Beethoven isnt western culture, only a piece of it.