Sociology of culture: Some definitions and models

The big question, to which we do not necessarily have an answer, is this: What is culture?

There have of course been a lot of different definitions over the years, not all of them consistent with one another. Generally when somebody attempts to define culture, they are also attempting to specify the social role that culture has. Here are just a few of the best-known definitions (see more definitions, and a discussion, at this site):

• Matthew Arnold (1869): “Culture is then properly described not as having its origin in curiosity, but as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection. It moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the scientific passion for pure knowledge, but also of the moral and social passion for doing good. As in the first view of it, we took for its worthy motto Montesquieu's words: 'To render an intelligent being yet more intelligent!' so, in the second view of it, there is no better motto which it can have than these words of Bishop Wilson: 'To make reason and the will of God prevail!'”
• Edward Tylor (1871): “culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”
• TS Eliot (1948): “Culture may even be described simply as that which makes life worth living.”
• Clifford Geertz(1973): “Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs”
• Raymond Williams(1958): “We use the word culture in these two senses: to mean a whole way of life--the common meanings; to mean the arts and learning--the special processes of discovery and creative effort. Some writers reserve the word for one or other of these senses; I insist on both, and on the significance of their conjunction. The questions I ask about our culture are questions about deep personal meanings. Culture is ordinary, in every society and in every mind.”

These are only a few of the definitions that have been very influential. A comprehensive review of all of the definitions of culture that are in use somewhere would probably be impossible, and might be pointless. A couple of things would seem to proceed from a comparison of these definitions. First, there is an implicit difference between elite and popular culture. Second, there is a lack of agreement as to whether culture is something added to everyday life or an integral part of everyday life. Third, there is an implicit distinction between culture seen as a way of life and culture seen as cultural production or the products of cultural creativity.

It would be difficult to argue that one of these definitions is the “correct” one. Each one of them highlights some aspect of cultural processes, and we will be trying to consider, if not all of them, then as many as we can. One topic of dispute that is centrally important to us: to what degree is culture a product of other social forces, and to what degree is culture an independent influence on social forces? That is to say, is the general direction of influence from culture to society or from society to culture?

An answer to this question is also, in part, an answer to the question of cultural meaning. Some of the general approaches to answering the question of where cultural meaning comes from and whether/why it matters:

• “Reflection” theory, version 1 (Marxist): Cultural production offers a mirror of the social (material) world. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their being that determines their consciousness.” What does this mean in practice? Fundamentally, it means that while people are creative, and can produce ideas, they cannot produce just any idea – the range of consciousness is constrained by the material conditions under which people live. So culture, in this view, is at best a source of information about the syptoms of the material arrangements in any historical period.

There's another element to the Marxist version of “reflection” theory. It implies not just that culture occupies a position, but also that it has a purpose. The dominant ideas in any period are the ideas of the people who are dominant, and which justify their dominance. That is to say, most culture has an ideological purpose (in Marxist theory, the definition of ideology is narrower than in everyday usage: as Barthes argues, the phrase “dominant ideology” is redundant).

One possible example: the popularity of crime films and television programs contribute to fear of crime, which is used to encourage the expansion of the size and reach of various types of law enforcement.

• “Reflection” theory, version 2 (functionalist): Humans have a concrete need to understand and interpret the social world in which they live, and this need is met by cultural products. The interaction between culture and society helps to maintain a balance between freedom and constraint, and also offers a set of interacting “inputs” through which people in societies can recognize and adapt to change.

The basic assumption of all functionalist theories is that if anything exists (and especially if it survives) then it must fulfil some important purpose. The challenge for theory is then to discover this purpose.

A possible example: the popular film Brokeback Mountain combines symbols in a way that encourages public discussion, and it is taken both as marking a change in values about sexual orientation and as a way of trying to encourage the change to take place more quickly.

• Culture as an intervention into society (Weberian): Cultural products come together to create an image of the world, which can be a framework for action that changes the social environment. People are motivated by their perceptions and understandings, and some of these come through culture. The prime example for Max Weber was in his study The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, where he used religious ideas to try to answer the question of why people would be attracted to a system that demands so much and offers very little satisfaction. His answer: the technological conditions for the rise of capitalism were around for a long time before capitalism “took off” -- what was necessary was for there to appear a group of people who saw capitalism as offering way of living that was consistent with their values. So culture is what determines whether changes elsewhere will lead to social change or not.

Possible examples may have to do with the bizarre shift of rock n roll music (from “revolutionary” music at the time of its origins to generational and cold-war propaganda), or with the consequences of technology (internet: revolution in communications or convenience for shopping?). The idea here is that cultural predispositions determine whether or not a new force will change a social situation.

The point of drawing these distinctions? One of the primary motivations is a more or less purely intellectual one: to try to figure out where culture fits into a larger social picture. But also a part of the reason has to do with the relationship of individuals to culture: we see it as a source of identity and value, argue over whether elements of it are good or bad, invest energy into determining whether it is “real” or “fake.” These are ways putting all of that effort into a context that can make it understandable.