• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • The end of popular culture?
  • The LAST Blog
  • Ftubol y telenovelas
  • Transculturacion
  • Mestizaje

• Blogroll

  • French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • SPAN364: Survey of Spanish-American Literature to the 1820s
  • SPAN365: Magical Realism Reconsidered
  • SPAN401: Spanish-English Translation
  • SPAN404: Cinema of Mexico

• Contributors

  • Ana´s blog
  • Andrea Azcona
  • Annabelle693’s Blog
  • annamarieke
  • Cennet Bahcesi
  • Earth Lives Connection
  • El Rincon
  • Javier’s LAST 201 Blog
  • jen gebert’s blog
  • jtraynor
  • kieron_hodgson
  • L@sT 2001 –>PoPul@R CulTuRe iN L@tiN AmErIC@
  • LAST 201
  • Last two-oh-one…
  • Latin American Pop Culture
  • Latin American Studies
  • Latin American Studies 201
  • Lluvia
  • maite’s blog for LAST201
  • Mercy’s Blog
  • POPULAR CULTURE IN
  • Popular Culture in Latin America
  • Posthegemony
  • ree00
  • RF. LAST 201 pop culture in LA
  • Salvador’s Spanish Class Blog
  • Sebastian’s blog
  • Sush Mgush
  • Taylor Cole LAST 201
  • tithflo
  • Tory’s blog for LAST201

The main statement of Williams’ article relies on the sentence ‘culture is ordinary’. Saying that, the author means that culture is produced, constructed, influenced, transformed and carried by ordinary people. In order to support and explain his i…

Keesing suggests in his article that culture and cultural ought to be re-conceptualized, as to incorporate the essentials of a more holistic representation of society (beyond the specificities that might become solely exotic in the approach from an eth…

As a couple of individuals said before I found it hard to understand Williams journal entry, he word choice in describing the struggles he had with self identity in Cambridge are a little too much. I did however understand the overall message which the title clearly stated. The typical views on culture are somewhat wrong, especially those which ethnocentrism is based upon. I connected well with Raymond Williams when he makes points about how culture is whatever you make of it, because every little community, in every city or town, in every country has its own unique culture. At times Williams lost me when he had to go into intense detail about describing how Marxists view people  and culture. Which he then goes on to argue are wrong and somewhat ignorant to what Industrialism has created for the majority of the world in terms of revolutionizing Culture.

                Roger M. Keesing journal essay was much more complex, which I found much more interesting. He give some excellent metaphors for how to look at culture and the way culture has been shaped. The comparison of culture to a coral reef was especially well written, because it explained how cultures are a accumulation of past events and acts that have created a larger picture of identity. Keesing also writes about how the improper use of culture has been attributed to its colonial history. He states that when the first colonial powers conquered new lands they saw the peoples customs as a way to over generalize them and create a culture that was not unique to individuals. I also enjoyed his little discussion about his friend from the Kwaio, because it was a great example to show how diverse cultures still are in the world. It also showed how like Keesing states later on that some cultures will always have a ability to go against traditional views and still manage to make an individual fulfilled in his life despite how insignificant it may be.

                Both these papers gave me a better understanding of culture, and showed me how culture is very dependent on what you make of it. It can be any type of small ritual/custom that is performed by an individual or a group of people. Which in turn made me think of what my own culture was?

A fairly standard definition of culture is something along the lines of ‘a system of symbols and meanings that lack fixed boundaries, are constantly in flux, and interact and compete with one another.’ When the majority of people use the term

Of the two readings for thias week, I have to say I prefer the earlier one by Raymond Williams. The basic idea that “culture is ordinary” is nothing new to me by itself, but Williams presents some arguments along the way that I found very interesting….

What is Culture?01/12/09 Throughout the readings, Williams and Keesing provide insight into the definition of culture and how scholars perceive its function in society. Williams’ title “Culture is Ordinary” reflects his viewpoint of culture as a…

What is culture?After reading the articles for several times, I concluded that the authors were trying to define culture. I used to have my own definition of culture, then I arrived to this class and everything changed. For me, culture was a systematic…

This weeks reading topic of  what is culture?  has opened my eyes to  different perspectives on culture and the ways and styles of which they are formed and lived through.  I found the readings both by Raymond Williams and Roger Kessing to be ver…

After reading both Williams’ and Keesing’s articles on “culture”, I know have a better understanding of the ways we define, understand, and portray culture in the public realm.The first article by Raymond Williams was rather hard to follow. The main po…

 

The first article describes culture as ordinary, in every society and in every mind. I found that the descriptions of social constructions and classes were similar in some ways to my own views. On page 16 the author, Raymond Williams describes how the community supported his dying father. I believe this exemplifies what he calls "the old society", one where you know who your neighbors are and watch out for them. The way many people live today in western culture seems to be drifting away from this close knit community. People now however live even closer together in apartment buildings but yet most never know the names of their neighbors. This leads into another point that I noted regarding the assumptions people make about the "masses". Judgments are made on those same neighbors based the television programs they watch, or the magazines they read, as well as the movies they rent and so on. People judge the "others" as being the ignorant, uneducated side of society without even meeting them or knowing anything about them. Williams goes on to say that his own father who read the Daily Herald gained much knowledge regardless of his level of training. One thing I noted in this part of the article was that unfortunately newspapers today are under no obligation to tell the truth. Many people don’t know that and take everything they read for the truth. People are misinformed and go on to misinform others. Williams describes how culture is created and changes and explains how it is not only for the elite group of people within the walls of a tea room.
The second article written by Roger Keesing defines radical alterity and cultural otherness. Anthropologist have a history of searching for the "other", exotic, different, radical, culture that is not their own. There is a constant over stating of difference that can be extremely harmful to the very group of people that is being studied. Binaries like old vs. new are used in describing "our" culture and "their" culture. This makes them seem very far away from us as well as very exotic and captivating. Unfortunately for the "them" in this situation, their culture is being exploited and if they were to evolve and change as most every culture does they in turn loose their so called "authenticity". Keesling states and I believe that these borders and boundaries that define different cultures and peoples are dissolving. As people become more aware of the unstable definitions of "Culture" itself, one begins to question more and more the studies that have been done, and the assumptions that are made regarding cultures different from their own. A person really has to think about the hidden agendas behind the articles they read. National Geographic for example is a popular magazine that often has two page spreads of men and women in tribal dress and articles regarding the most exotic and fascinating aspects of their lives, history and culture. Magazines like this want to catch the attention of their readers and ultimately make more money. In this way cultures are described to the world in exaggerated and exploitative ways.
Both of these articles examine the concept of "culture" and how a person is not born with it, for it is socially created and learned.

In the first article the author establishes something from the very beginning and is that culture is ordinary, and he also relates culture to society, how they are made of common meanings and directions. He also seems disappointed about the path that …

Culture is a system of meaning shared between people.  Culture is not inborn. People have to learn the values and norms of the society in which they are living. Sometimes we associate culture with “being cultivated” but as Williams asserts in his article, “culture is ordinary”. Culture is both high and popular culture but there is also many sub or counter cultures inside one particular culture. The culture of one particular country is not learnt only in museums but also in the street. Culture is shaped and negotiated among and between people. Keesing emphasizes this point in his article: people often want to naturalize, reify culture but culture is above all shaped by people. Culture is produced by people, that is why culture is “ordinary”. However, there is an important link between culture and power. Williams emphasizes this point speaking about the mass culture financed by advertising. The financing of culture is a burning issue and there are many other questions around this issue like: profitability or spirit independence. These two texts both emphasize the production of culture. Culture is a system of beliefs which conditions people’s behavior so it could be a way to manipulate or control people.

The two articles focus on the construction of “the other” who is excluded from the dominant culture. Most of the time, each human society defines its culture in opposition with the other ones. However, it is worth noticing that each culture appropriates elements of other cultures. Culture is a process and it is not fixed but it evolves. For instance tea is Chinese but it is viewed as a part of English culture. Western cultures define other cultures as exotic, they shape an “exotic other” but they also shape this other in their own culture, calling it “the mass”. The other is constructed as different. Williams’ article is very interesting because he speaks about the people access to culture. I agree with him and I do not think that we could assert that some people, “the mass”, are excluded from culture. It is true that it is more difficult for what we called “the mass”, the non-dominant class, to have a good education, to go to the university but they shape their own sub-culture, their own codes which is also culture. I do not think there is one dominant culture and then no other culture or people excluded from this dominant culture. I do believe in sub-cultures.

Out of the two articles assigned for this week, I found Keesing’s assessment of the term "culture" much more compelling than Williams’ article.  However, I think this is largely a result of the historical context of each article.  I’m a little confused about the date of publication of the first article, but I think it was written in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s.  This would explain the author’s fixation with Marxism and his constant juxtaposition of working-class culture with elite culture in England.  When this article is viewed in a historical context, I find Williams’ criticism of "culture" fairly compelling, yet there seem to be some elements of hypocrisy.  Primarily in the author’s initial description of the "teashop" and its association with an elevated "cultivated people."  Here, Williams is describing a frustration with the use of the term "culture" in parallel to the term "cultivated" and therefore "educated" (translation: elite).   After explaining his rejection of the term "culture" in this context, he goes on to describe a vision of English culture to which everyone contributes and where cultural meanings are negotiated.  However, the author also refers to a new and "cheapened" version of culture which he links to advertising in mass media.  This type of culture the author proposes to replace with a better, more developed culture of  the future.  I find that Williams’ allegations that popular culture as represented by the mass media is a low and cheapened culture to be akin to the elitism of the teashop use of "culture."  It seems to me that the author holds some nostalgia for his former days as a boy in rural England and the type of "culture" he saw in this setting and this is (in some fashion) is what he would like to impose upon the "new" developing culture of the time.  

In reference to Keesing’s article, I agree for the most part that anthropology has been centered around a quest for the "Other" and an emphasis on difference.  Honestly, I don’t have much to say other than that!  I’ve read a lot of similiar articles in Latin American Studies concerning anthropology and the exoticizing of non-western cultures so I suppose that this article doesn’t propose much that is new information for me. 
Sorry I don’t have more to contribute!

I was thrown off by the concept of radical alterity according to Keesing’s article.  I do believe that in the past and frequently nowadays, anthropologists have tried to label other people living in different regions of the world as “others”, speciall…

What is Culture? Honestly I found the first reading “Culture is Ordinary” by Raymond Williams difficult to understand and to follow. The only part that really drew me in was when he started to use his personal anecdotes of his life before becoming …

What is culture?The first article in my opinion was difficult to understand. I am not sure but I think that for the author education is an important aspect of a culture, and in this article for the case of London. I think that the author says that if p…

« go back

• 

• Categories

  • Administration
  • Arguedas and Asturias
  • Bellos and Hippolyte Ortega
  • Campbell and Taussig
  • Garcia Canclini
  • Gomez Peña etc.
  • Introductions
  • Ortiz etc.
  • Overview
  • Peron and Borges
  • Responses
  • Review
  • Rowe and Schelling
  • Vasconcelos and Wade
  • Williams and Keesing

• Recent Comments