Category: Williams and Keesing

I had a little technical difficulty with posting the first week’s responses so I had to break the two articles up this week. In response to the Keesing article, I agree with the theme of his argument that “culture” is very complex and cannot be conceptualized as anthropologists have for years as a widespread reified entity. Culture is abstract not concrete. It is more than just art, music, language, and food. I do agree with the idea of Culture having a history likened to a coral reef, the core is constantly morphing in small almost invisible ways but it is in continuous change and all those subtle changes work to shape the true identity of that culture.

Williams- “A culture is common meanings, the product of a whole people, and offered individual meanings, the product of a man’s whole committed personal and social experience” (Williams, Pg. 15). Williams argues that culture is indeed very ordinary due to the way in which it is taken for granted by people. He discusses how Marxism argues culture is dying and the masses are ignorant, influenced by the development of the industrial state and how it “deliberately cheapens our human responses, making art and literature into desperate survivors…” (Williams, Pg. 16). Despite being a member of the communist party for a year and a half, Williams rejects how Marxism views society and insists that the essence of culture lies within its people. He also notes how culture is constantly changing and evolving as people change and evolve. In Williams’ rural homeland he sees a powerful sense of culture with a strong democratic ideology, one that has not yet been encapsulated by the capitalist doctrine. Personally I do agree with most of Williams’ arguments although I found the article a little disjointed at times. Maybe that i just me not understanding the writing completely but after finishing the essay I do definitely get a sense of exactly the direction Williams is heading in. He feels the industrial revolution is thought of as a culture-vulture but in fact culture lies within the people, and those people are still strongly connected to the arts and other characteristics of a vibrant culture.

I’d like to start off my saying that this is a couple days late because I accidentally made two separate blogs and posted my first response there, anyway here it is in the right place.

I began the first reading by Williams with much enthusiasm and enjoyed his comparisons of lifes journey to that of a buses. However as I got further and further into the text I found it quite difficult to follow his thought processes or understand the point he was trying to make. Holistically I think I grasp it even if point by point I thought it to be unclear. Even so one of his very first points related to us stuck with me throughout the rest of the article, “To grow up in that country was to see the shape of a culture, and its modes of change” (pg.11). This caught my attention because it bodes true for every person, no matter which country they are from. While he was talking about his personal history and culture, I couldn’t help but think of mine. Although in the grand scheme things I’m not even a blip on the timeline of the Earth, I’ve still been around long enough to have been one the neighborhood kids and then outgrow that same title. A new generation is trick or treating while I’m now the one doling out the sweets. Moreover I think we all constantly hear stories from our parents or grandparents of the golden ages, when things were safer, gas was cheaper and kids played outside instead of rotting their brains on the couch. I know I used to roll my eyes at such stories which felt more like neverending lectures than accounts of the past. Now I can feel similar tales welling in my mouth waiting for to be released on younger ear. Anyway what I’m trying to say is I agree with Williams in the respect that there is this wave of elitist culture more about keeping others out then including everyone in. Why not let everyone enjoy the opera whether or not they can afford box seats? On the other hand I believe those striving to become a “culture vulture” are missing out on the most accessible and fulfilling form of culture possible, family. During the article Williams makes multiple references to his ability to stay grounded by thinking about the ones he loved and pitying them because they were part of the working class. There is nothing shameful about creating and in today’s internet run world, something you can hold on to, touch , and feel, well, that sounds pretty darn goods

Well as I started to read both articles, I was quite into them, wondering what each author was trying to get at.  Of course I had set aside a couple hours to do the lengthy readings and was excited about writing my first blog.  About halfway through the first article my cell phone rang and it was my mom on the call display.  I thought it was a little strange as it was in the middle of the afternoon and she should have been at work.
Her tone seemed fine but I knew something was wrong.  She preceeded to tell me there had been a death in the family, a close family friend and all of a sudden the details of the freak accident were all my mind could contain.  As I hung up the phone with her, I tried to continue reading and realized that there was no way I could even begin to read about culture or to even write about it when someone\s life close to me was literally falling apart.  I decided to put the readings down and focus on my family and the loss it has had.
That is the reason I have no culture blog up here and why I won’t be commenting on any of my classmates blogs for this week.  I will continue with the readings next week and know that everyone will understand my situation.
Just a quick note that we should all cherish every moment we have with the people we love as noone knows when our time will be up.  Sorry for that somewhat depressing last comment….but it’s so true.

Week 1 Readings

The reading “Culture is Ordinary” centralizes around the idea that culture originates from ordinary people. Often culture is associated with the elite of a population, as they are the main producers and consumers of arts and knowledge. However, it is obvious that that there is a kind of “working class” culture that has emerged, that is quite different from the typical idea of refined, luxurious, high-class culture. Williams brings up an interesting point that often the makers of art have a hostile view towards the elite, making their consumption of the art somewhat ironic. The article goes into great detail about the Marist take on culture, stressing that “culture is interpreted in relation to its underlying system of production”, that his English society was a “class dominated culture”, just as Marxist thought states. I find these two things very interesting, because you at first thought I would not think that a system of production would have very much to do with culture. But when looking at a modern culture, such as the United States, one can see that the constant production and flow of goods, and their wide availability and marketing, are all directly tied to the consumerist aspect of American culture. Also, I found interesting the statement that only the “deserving poor get much educational opportunity” in relation to his earlier Marxist statement about the bourgeoisie being the dominant class in a class dominated culture. I had not really thought about this, but after reading this I find it especially true. The rich can buy their education, with not much regard to whether they are actually “deserving” of it or not. There are requirements to be able to attend educational institutions, but in many cases it is money that is the determining factor in one’s acceptance. For a poor individual to receive an education such as the one that members of the elite receive, he must do extra work in order to excel academically, athletically, etc.

I am not sure I really agree with Williams talk about “bad culture”. When talks of the “cheap feelings and moronic arguments” shown in popular culture are a “deeply degrading version of the actual lives of our contemporaries”. I understand where he is coming from, as anyone can see that much of our modern culture is, as he says, vulgar. But on the other hand I don’t really agree with his immediate branding of this culture as “bad”, just because it is new and not produced by the upper class. Perhaps I am not fully grasping his argument, but his label of modern culture as “vulgar” seems to be a little pretentious.

Keesing’s article talks about the way we stress the differences between cultures while analyzing them. I found it interesting how Keesing explained how the focus on cultural difference is a search for the exotic. One can see this everywhere: when tourists travel to tropical places, when people dress in the style of a different country, when people take dance lessons, etc. These are pretty trivial searches for alternative expressions and experiences, but it they are everyday examples of the “search for the exotic” that Keesing speaks of.

I also really liked how the article brings up the irony of the fact that it is fashionable to be different in a globalized world, where boundaries between cultures are vanishing. Not so long ago, distinct cultures where shrouded in mystery due to lack of contact between them. Now that much of this mystery has disappeared, and a kind of global culture is emerging, people have decided they want to stand out from the crowd, either individually or by uniting their people to show they have a strong, vibrant culture.

Both these articles were quite interesting, but a little hard to grasp the main concepts. They both taught me a lot about the production, reproduction and consumption of culture that I had not thought about before.

These readings offered a unique perspective on what “culture” truly is. It is a difficult concept to grasp, especially as a Canadian living in a multi-”cultural” society. With such a vast mix of characteristics in all Canadians, how can we pick out certain elements to classify our culture with? Especially with the wealth of North America, and all the examples of “high” (unreachable for many) culture, what can we claim to be truly everyones? One perspective, is that through mixing and matching all these social stratums and cultures, we have lost our definition and thus lost our culture. However, in the first reading, by Williams, it shows that this is not the case in the slightest. Instead, modernization has expanded and enhanced our culture. The increased global mobility of persons, in terms of migration patterns, has diffused traditions and self expressions throughout the world. Furthermore, our advancements in the media and communications have allowed us to experience cultural practices that we may never otherwise have observed. For instance, in our class we have a specific demographic of those in a circumstance to choose to go to university. It is acceptable to say, none of us will carry out a portion of our lives in the ”slums,” yet in our first lecture, we were able to see two video examples of life and arts in these communities. This helps us gain perspective on how our own culture is displayed while appreciating those in other classes and societies. Therefore, we are at no loss in our own culture at all, rather we are no longer restricted to the terms of our immediate surroundings. It may be more difficult to define, but that is representative of our cultural breadth.

Culture is the essense of a society. We may be in different social classes, come from various ethnic backgrounds, hold seperate political positions, however, we can all come together for a mutual appreciation of the arts and expressions that we value. In the places that I have lived in I daily witnessed seperation of lifestyle and values, but when a Canucks game came on, or it was time for the Calgary Stampede, or even the Houston Rodeo, everyone could come together and take pride in the place that they live. Therefore, spending in the arts, or whatever it may be that unites the people is a justified request. We all know that governments and religion have faltered in uniting the masses time and time again. However, the cultural elements have the capability to be that glue.

Today I like write in spanish, In the class are some people who would like practice it, so I think it´s a good idea…

Definir qué es cultura es algo que pareciera muy complicado ya que el término ha ido variando con el paso de los años, tal es el caso de los autores de las lecturas de esta semana: Keessing y William, donde podemos ver que cada uno hace evidente la influencia de la época. Por un lado William describe algo en lo que estoy un tanto de acuerdo: “la cultura es ordinaria” y es que todo lo que nos rodea y a lo que vamos dando forma es o será parte de nuestra cultura, es decir, la cultura es producida por cualquier persona o individuo; es por ello que William critica a corrientes como el Marxismo, el cual postula que la cultura es solo para las personas de clase alta y que a ésta no tienen acceso las personas ignorantes o de un nivel inferior. De forma que William apoya la idea de que la cultura es simplemente común. Algo que menciona y que me parece interesante es el hecho de que la educación es vital en la sociedad para evitar que se “polarización” de la cultura, por decirlo de algún modo. Si bien es cierto que a través de la historia la influencia del gobierno ha ido cambiando el rumbo de la historia cultural de un país, también se debe añadir la comercialización de la cultura, tal como lo cita William en el texto. La cultura debe ser simplemente, creo yo, la identidad de un país, cultura, raza, ciudad, etc., aquello que lo caracteriza… Por su parte Keesing hace referencia a la lo que la antropología describe como cultura, la cual es “universo limitado de ideas y costumbres”, y es aquí donde creo que la controversia inicia, por que cómo se puede definir qué está dentro de ese universo limitado. En ambas lecturas se menciona en cierta parte la idea de poder y cómo quienes gozan de éste interfieren en la cultura, por ejemplo el caso del gobierno. Un ejemplo de esto puede citarse en lso libros de texto que el gobierno daba en las escuelas públicas en México, donde la historia esta escrita de acuerdo a los intereses del gobierno y en cierta forma para crear esa identidad nacional o patriotismo en los estudiantes desde pequeños.

Good Day!!!

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.

Trying to define culture can be a very hard task because I guess nobody really knows what it is. Everybody has a different definition for culture and so to come up with a precise definition of culture would be someting very difficult. From the first reading by Williams I liked how he said that culture is “ordinary” and that it is everywhere and not only in museums or teashops or elite schools or as being part only of high education. Culture is ordinary. Everybody has a different definition to what culture is.

I liked more the second reading as it was more about anthropology. Last semester I took a class about anthropology in Latin America and we were taught how anthropologists would go there and do their research, some of them already with preconceived notions which were mostly negative, some labelling these cultures as “primitve” ones. Also I got to see how this anthropologists had a role in shaping outsiders views about these cultures and how they can help these cultures in their different struggles. Anyway, what I liked most about this reading was Keesing’s radical alterity notion. I would agree with Jean Sebastien when he said that most people ditinguishes themselves from others in order to find the uniqueness of their own culture. When I go on trips and later come back I can’t help but to compare and think of the differences that I or my culture has with others. I guess it’s just natural for us to do this.

Keesing’s statements of culture for me had more impact than that of Williams. Williams take on culture as “ordinary” was very interesting and I do agree with the notion that culture is everywhere, however it didn’t have as much as Keesing’s article. I guess mostly because he tackles the notions of the culture through the anthropologist lenses, which is something I’ve been familiarizing for the past year or so. There are two of Keesing’s arguments which I particularly liked; one was on radical alterity and the other one was the notion of culture as composed of small things which are not necessarily “theirs” or “ours”.

What I liked about this radical alterity notion is that I believe we do this a lot. I think that we distinguish ourselves from other cultures, in an attempt to find the uniqueness of our own culture. (Whether these distinctions are “radical” or not, depends on the cultures we are distinguishing). These distinctions of the “otherness” of different cultures can work like a process of elimination which in its final outcome will leave you with characteristics of your own. When in class we tried to highlight aspects of Canadian culture, I particularly named objects which to me were representative of Canadian cultures. My group did not agree with some of the things I named, but as a foreigner these things were characteristic of Canadian culture. Essentially, what Mounties, moose and maple syrup had in common, in my perspective, is that these objects are absent from where I come from and here there are more common. Hence, I related them as part of the Canadian culture.

I believe that it is definitively the small things that make one’s culture so characteristic, even though some of these distinctions were “taken” from a different culture and incorporated into one’s. If you really think about it, the things that identify a particular culture (for example, that of your own country) are small things like places, language and/or music. Whereas the States has McDonald’s, Canada has Tim Horton’s, Panama has Pio Pio. These places have been incorporated as elements that now represent a particular culture. Similarly, Panamanian culture also highlights an example of elements “taken” from a different culture and incorporated into one’s own. Reggae and its genres are characteristic of the Caribbean and during the construction of the canal many Caribbeans were hired and brought with them their culture, including their music. Over time Panamanians started to sing reggae (in Spanish) and essentially, we ended up borrowing this aspect of the Caribbean culture and incorporated it into our own. Today, Spanish reggae is very characteristic of Panama, especially that of the Atlantic provinces.

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 ethnographer’s voyage to a distant village for example) so to enable the social theorists to analyze the production of knowledge, ideological forces, peculiarities of community structure and tradition, and the interconnectedness to other global tendencies. A critique to the radical alterity quest in anthropological studies is acceptable in cases in which subjects and peoples are undermined or culturally stereotyped but this is actually not the feeling I get from recent ethnographies I have read such as Tsing 2004 about forest conservation in Indonesia. Also, there is a value in ethnographic approach to cultural studies that holds uniqueness in methodology that differentiates, in my opinion, anthropology from other social sciences. Hence, ethnographic research proposes this approach from the everyday lives characteristics and description of experiences of cultural immersion based on extensive use of interviews and so forth.

The tendency for the social sciences to assimilate from each other is evident in the use of notions of place and space in cultural anthropology. However, the discourse on what is that culture means might blur the very notion that culture is alive and basically inseparable from human nature. I find specifically interesting the reference to the tendency for anthropology to draw from cognitive science and languages, merging concepts that explain the intrinsic relationship between the body and mind in creating what we experience and think as culture.

The approach Williams take to the discussion of culture differs from the representations in social sciences presented by Keesing. Williams is more preoccupied not so much to how we define and think of culture but the way in which culture corresponds to our realities and our imagined conceptions of ideals to our society. I find interesting the discussion on how the educated elite tries to create an exclusionary result by ascribing high culture to the concept of culture. The nature of the post-industrial British society obscured the common qualities and moral values still existent in the countryside, creating the urban exclusions that distinct the social common from the cultural. The paradigm lays in how the capitalist society controls the means that produce culture and assesses an identity of mass representations. The interest and financial investment that is concentrated in advertisement and consumption outcomes the common education.

It is something to let expand in our minds: how the society we live in creates individualistic values that make humans, who are fully capable of understanding the basic notion of democracy, to be passive in face of so much contradiction in even the most ordinary things.

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 ‘culture’, they are referring to a way of life; this includes language, manners, fashion, behavior, morality, ethics, religion, and art.

The readings deal with several possible meanings of ‘culture’. The two which are most favoured are a) a way of life; b) arts and education. However, another idea of culture is introduced, namely that which is ruled by a group of elites who consider themselves sophisticated and ‘cultured’ to the extent that they are separate (and of course better) than everyone else. To me, the belief that you are better than others because of the places you dine at or the people that you are seen with is ignorant in the extreme.

Upon finishing the assigned readings, I was left with several questions regarding culture and our perception of it; some of which were brought up by the readings, and some of which were my own. What, exactly, is culture? How do cultures differ around the world? And are the differences significant enough to truly divide them, or are they merely superficial?

It seems to me that the author of the second article is saying that cultures are in effect the same, and that the ‘exoticness’ that we think of when we think of foreign lands is a “culturally constructed ‘other’” that fills the “savage slot.” Now I have to say that I didn’t really understand what this article was getting at, and I got kind of confused by all the various theories and post-whatevers (I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what “cleavages of class” are); but I think the gist of it is that we are more similar than we think, and that we purposely seek out and exaggerate the differences between ourselves and others. Why do we do this? The author seems to think that we are searching for “radical otherness”, and we find this otherness in the primitive tribes living in the Amazon.

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. It seems obvious to me that, to start out, he describes exactly what we were talking about last class. That is, the difference between high culture and popular culture. I agree with his distinctions and opinion that, while different, each is important in it’s own way. And it is true and unfortunate that some people, like in the teashop, devalue anything that isn’t high culture. Bebop,the primal form of jazz music, is considered an “art” music and is very sophisticated, certainly high culture, but would never have existed if it weren’t for various musical traditions of folk and popular culture–blues, ragtime, swing, among others. Had elitists of high culture been powerful enough back in the beginning of the 20th century to subvert those “lesser” traditions, their eventual product would never have existed!

Later on, Williams discusses the effects economics has on culture. He says that, even though more and more bad culture is being made and is more easily distributed, more good culture is also being made. This I can agree with. But he also seems to believe that this proliferation of bad/commercial culture is not a harmful thing. I personally think that commercial culture eats away at the minds of its consumers and participants. But aside from that, it is undeniable that it erodes good culture, by pushing the purveyors of good culture aside. I don’t, however, see bad culture as a necessary evil in an economic society, mainly because you can travel and witness bustling economic cities, even in the U.S. and Canada, with varying degrees (some high, many low) of quality, unique culture relative to commercially infected culture.

The second reading, by Keesing, was interesting, but a little confusing for me having never taken an anthropology or cultural studies class. But generally, I get the idea that culture is very, very hard to define because it is complex, constantly evolving, without bounds, and shapes the perceptions of even those attempting to understand it.

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 universal and innate phenomenon. He describes culture as the arts and learning implemented to expresses the beliefs of every human society. Williams suggests that culture serves two distinct functions: 1) the “common purpose” of the society, and 2) the “deep personal meaning” of the individuals. He criticizes “teashop culture” as well as those who utilize esoteric argot in describing culture to illustrate his belief that all individuals create and share this structure, not merely the well-educated. Williams additionally examines Marxist cultural theory, which states “culture must be finally interpreted in relations to its underlying system of production.” He denounces the Marxist notion “we live in a dying culture and the masses are ignorant,” and likens this reference of the masses to cultural othering. However, Williams does find merit in three aspects of Marxist cultural theory: 1) the relationship between culture and production, 2) the observation of restricted education, and 3) a different system of production would serve as a cultural directive. He condones Leavis’ theory that industrialization has tainted, or cheapened, British culture, and suggests that education is the only method of retaining classic art and literature. Finally, Williams opposes the theory that the decline of culture in the industrial era resembles “a kind of Gresham’s law,” enumerating examples of how “bad culture” does not replace “good culture” in any definitive correlation.
In “Theories of Culture Revisited,” Keesing focuses on radical alterity, defined as “a culturally constructed Other radically different from Us.” He describes some classic binaries associated with othering, including “civilized verses primitive,” “rational verses irrational,” and “Occident verses Orient.” Keesing criticizes common anthropological approaches to culture, accusing them of essentialism and reification. He means scholars typically study and describe culture in a manner that portrays this elusive concept as concrete and tangible. Keesing elaborates on how the reification of culture results in its becoming a commodity with potential for appropriation, thus, further allowing for othering.

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 very intriguing and informative. I felt Williams opened my eyes to new perspectives and ways of thinking on culture of which I had not considered before. From the beginning of Williams paper I appreciated his courage in the labialization of such an extensive, complex topic, as culture and classify it as ‘ordinary’. I think, however, a dictionary definition of what exactly culture and ordinary ‘means’ would be a good technique for his use of exploring culture. I felt as though Williams brought in a bit more excitement and fun into his paper through the structure and use of words and expressions over Kessing’s. For example Williams brings rhyming into his paper through word ‘culture of which he compares to vulture and sepulture. This comparison adds to his overarching thesis but was defiantly not necessary and felt he thought it was advantageous to add some humor and lighten up the topic. Another aspect of Williams paper I enjoyed was his expulsion of Marxists theorists who say that we are living in a dying culture. This belief is extremely popular at moment and I feel it was adventurous of him to “stand on the other side of the room’ , so to speak. One of the things of which I did not necessary agree with on Williams paper was the classification of culture in terms of good or bad. I feel as though a classification such as this, into black and white categories should of been refrained. When reading through Keesing’s article I enjoyed how he brought in quotes by other people. I felt as though this brought another perspective to his argument. I also like how through the reading of Keesing’s piece I was able to learn a new word and concept known as radical alterity. Some questions I have for both of these papers are: firstly for Williams paper I wonder how his paper would have changed if he focused on a certain aspect of culture such as religion? For Keesing’s paper I wonder what his paper would evolve if he had brought in more prespectives on top of “post-Marxist’ and feminist approaches. I feel as though both papers explored past theories and analogies of culture well and feel as though they have set forth a steeping stone for the continuing growth and study of culture as the world itself evolves.

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 points that I understood from the article are these. First, Williams stresses the importance of making a clear distinction between a person’s culture, and the notion of a person being “cultured”. Having a culture does not mean that one is “cultured” with access to and appreciation for the “finer things in life”, such as art and literature. Rather, as the author repeatedly reminds us, “culture is ordinary”. People all over the world, in all walks of life, have some form of culture. In other words, culture is accessible to all.

Williams also stresses the importance of education in carrying on a culture, which I agree with. Not only does education teach the various aspects of the culture, but it also provides individuals with the tools needed to question the culture, and create one’s own meanings and interpretations of it.

Another point the author makes is that one cannot describe a so-called “mass-culture”, as the notion of the “masses” does not exist. By describing a group of others as the “masses”, we are perpetuating the “us vs. them” dichotomy. This idea is further developed in the article by Roger Keesing, which I found much easier to follow.

After reading Keesing’s article, I’m reminded of a few major themes covered in my introductory course to Latin American Studies. First off, anthropologists as well as society in general seem obsessed with the need to define the “other”. In defining what the “other” is, we create a definition of ourselves. We define ourselves by what we are not. This is dangerous, as we tend to perceive ourselves as better than the others, and see our ways of doing things as more sophisticated than theirs. However, more and more cultures are intermingling, and it is becoming more difficult to find this radical “other”, that is so different from ourselves.

In studying other cultures, we must consider who gets to decide what is portrayed as the overall “culture” of whatever society or group of people we are studying. I’ve learned that there are certain people, usually those in power, and often anthropologists, who have the resources and power to shape the way the culture is portrayed. In the case of anthropologists, their portrayal of the culture of whichever society they are studying is often shaped by their search for that “radical alterity”, as Keesing puts it. They therefore portray certain aspects of the culture, and may hide others, in order to show the most radically different culture they can.

In considering who exactly gets to decide what is portrayed as the culture of a society, consider Canada. Often, Canadian culture is linked with all things First Nations, like art, dance, ceremonies and rituals. However, do the First Nations people really get a say in how they are portrayed to the rest of the world? As well, who is portraying Canadian culture this way? Usually, it is not the First Nations people. I find it ironic that the culture portrayed as Canadian national culture is of the people who are most oppressed in Canada. I believe that there are many similarities between the portrayals of Canadian national culture with the cultural portrayals of many Latin American countries.

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.