Are there any traits/practices that are common to all human cultures or societies? For example, what comparisons can be made between pre-colonial African societies and those of the European colonizers? Or modern Western and Asian cultures?
I’m having a hard time coming up with many that really say anything, while not having obvious exceptions.
I guess I’d suggest all societies feature some loyalty to the family unit.
There also is some submission/acquiesence to authority/tradition.
And some sense of cohesiveness, something that makes them “different” from other tribes/nations.
I think that all cultures incorporate food into their rituals/traditions. I also think that the cohesiveness about which you wrote actually yields a measure of common defense among members of the culture vis a vis other parrallel cultures.
On a side note, use of the term “culture” can be a bit misleading, because it has no agreed upon definition. I think that the OP is referring to culture as society (meaning the whole group) rather than as sub-groups within society (i.e. sub-culture). If I am wrong, Dinsdale, then let me know.
db - I guess I do not really know the proper term to use. I was thinking along something less than political distinctions. Sort of basic rules that apply to ALL coordinated human interaction. And maybe, if a group differed from another group on one of these practices, it would be appropriate to consider them distinct “cultures.”
So sure, you could talk about a modern American culture, or a modern black American culture, modern white American, first generation immigrant American, etc.
What I was kind of interested in was, are there traits that can be compared across time, or at geographic distances?
Your suggestion of food in rituals/traditions is the sort of thing I was thinking of.
I was finding it hard to come up with thoughts that are broad enough to cover all human cultures, but specific enough to actually say something.
I am far from a student of anthropology, so I look forward to your input and discussion.
IANA Anthropologists (in fact, my worst grade in college was in Anthropology), but I don’t think that I have ever heard of a culture which doesn’t use ceremony to recognize life-cycle events for its members (e.g., a ceremony marking the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood).
On a more basic level, because each individual acheives the next life-cycle hurdle on his or her own time-clock, there is some basic understanding within the culture of the importance of the individual members and how they fit into the group.
Sadly, for many cultures, this recognition of the importance of the individual was/is limited to males. Nonetheless, I think that on a basic level, the importance of individuals is universally recognized.
I think that Thou shall not murder pretty much applies to all cultures.
In as much as no society allows people to kill each other on a whim. Obviously, before you can “murder” someone else, you need to follow the procedures, for instance, being a duly authorized law enforcer carrying out duties, or not being “one of us” (in primative societies) an “outsider” and not a member of said society could have been considered fair game. At worst I believe that there might have been some cultures that defined who was considered human as only your immediate family group.
this is related to…
Killing Children
pretty much ‘hard-wired’ into our make-up. Considered abhorent throughout all societies except when proscribed by religious dogma. I’m thinking of the sacraficing to the god Moloch refered to in the old testament.
BMalion re: killing children, how about Chinese abandoning girl babies. Or I recently read [b[Things Fall Apart**, which said the Ibo culture viewed twins as bad luck, and would abandon them in the forest. One of the many native practices the European colonists/missionaries disfavored.
The prohibition against murder I find interesting. At first I was going to jump in with tribal warfare, killing slaves, etc. But I think you hit it on the head, when you said tribes/cultures finesse the matter to define “otherness.”
I think that this is an important “Universal” that is not now at the forebrain of human collective thought, but is nonetheless true…
We accept or reject other people not by the color of their skin or the length of their hair but by how closely their “Belief System” matches our own.
Reference: The Open and Closed Mind ~ 1958.
There are some forms of body language that are thought to be universal.
For example, upon seeing a friend or friendly acquaintence (i.e. someone you recognize and like) the eyebrows raise.
Researchers found this to be a common expression of recognition all over the world, regardless of geography or culture.
It’s just a brief <up, down> but it’s so subconsiously ingrained no one I’ve ever mentioned it to had ever noticed it or was aware of it.
(I read about that in a book on body language that was a companion book to a PBS series. Might have been some kind of Bill Moyers thing, I can’t remember now.)
Fairblue - do such things as the eyebrow raise - or perhaps expressions of emotion such as smiling/laughter/tears - result from our being human, or our existing within a culture/society? Would the proverbial wildchild™ act similarly?
Are such actions hardwired into us the same way we are symmetrical quadripeds?
Moreover, can the two be meaningfully distinguished? Is there a distinction between MAN and SOCIAL MAN?
In this link, (mostly about Stephen Pinker and his linguisic theories) Anthropologist Donald E. Brown lists traits which he thinks might make up the shared metaculture of the ordinary , or ‘Universal’, people… http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/pinker.html
including, for instance:
Personally I would have concentrated on the tool using aspects of metaculture rather than the social aspects, but this list gives an impression of how unique and idiosyncratic humans are.
I would think storytelling would be one of those things all cultures do. Whether it be creationist myths among primitive tribes or urban legends here in the states–all people tell stories about themselves and their lives.
Ditto to art. Even peoples still living in huts and gathering nuts and berries for dinner appreciate the asthetic quality of decoration for decorations sake. Either they’re weaving a pleasant pattern into the grass mat they eat off of or we’re painting the sides of buildings with huge murals–both acts seem to stem from the same basic drive to beautify the things we come into contact with.
Milum - would you be so kind as to expound upon what is meant by “Belief System”?
For instance, I’m trying to identify the “Belief Systems” of, say a racist southern Baptist, and his black counterpart. ~ Dinsdale*
Sure** Dinsdale**, but closer to home might be the bedfellowing of the posters on the Straight Dope board. But in order to accomadate your belief system…
A racist southern black Baptist would find close kinship with racist southern white Baptists if they both believed in the superiority of the white race. And vice versa.
But they had to act within the constraints set up by their society. (twins are evil, girl-children are worthless). There must have been some female Chinese babies who’ve survived, I’ve seen 'em on TV. I’ve studied a little Greek and Roman history and I can probubly safely say that they weren’t killing their children willy-nilly all the time. Obviously, every culture will have exceptions to the rule, but the OP asked and I believe that, for the most part, every society has a strong proscription to care for it’s children. Now how you define children is up to that society.
I would strongly recommend “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell, or really any of his work with comparative mythology. A fascinating read, even if you do not buy into all of his assertions, and the most accessible attempt at comparative anthropology/cultural psychology that I have come across.
Sorry if I was unclear. And I still don’t understand.
Say a racist white southern Baptist, and a nonracist Southern black Baptist. The white rejects the black, tho they (purport to) share common religious “belief systems” and a common greographical heritage.
What determines what exclusionary elements of a belief system, i.e. racial dominance, trump other commonalities?
Similar thing could be said about Christianity in general. To a nonbeliever, it seems as tho they agree about nearly all the big stuff, but differ only as to some minor details. But wars have been fought over these “minor details”.
But wouldn’t you say that Christians share a belief system? At least to group them and distinguish them from other inconsistent/competing belief systems?
It seems to me as tho defining a group’s belief systems might be dependent upon the context within which such defining was being done.
I’ve studied a little Greek and Roman history and I can probubly safely say that they weren’t killing their children willy-nilly all the time. Obviously, every culture will have exceptions to the rule, but the OP asked and I believe that, for the most part, every society has a strong proscription to care for it’s children. Now how you define children is up to that society.