Must a Culture Be Experienced to be Truly Understood - Dissertation Example

Must a Culture Be Experienced to be Truly Understood? Introduction Culture is defined as the knowledge that is learned, shared, and used by people tointerpret experience and generate behavior. While Geertz in Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture points out that the social sciences differ on the extent to which the term can be objectively defined, it has been appropriated in a number of practical ways. Cultural anthropologists work on explaining “learned behavior” of different cultures and societies. Ethnography is a branch of anthropology that deals with discovering and describing specific cultures through ‘thick description’. This understanding is complicated when considering the nature of positivist and naturalist conceptions of knowledge. The positivist school of thought, which has been much maligned in recent years with the advent of post-structuralism, represents an approach a quantitative approach to ethnographic research and is founded on an understanding of culture as causal, whereas naturalism, “argues, we must adopt a system that respects the nature of the social world, which allows us to reveal its nature to us” (Hammersley, pg. 12). One of the primary debates in cultural anthropology has been the question of the extent that ethnographic research must be conducted with in-depth experiential knowledge of the culture or society examined, or if a valid ethnography can be constructed from secondary source data, or even from an individual foreign to the society under examination. The positivist school of thought, which has been much maligned in recent years with the advent of post-structuralism, represents an approach a quantitative approach to ethnographic research and is founded on an understanding of culture as causal, whereas naturalism, “argues, we must adopt a system that respects the nature of the social world, which allows us to reveal its nature to us” (Hammersley, pg. 12). This essay investigates this question and these conflicting perspectives through analyzing a number of sometimes conflicting ethnographic and cultural theories. It considers arguments against traditional positivist accounts of ethnography that assert that in-depth experiential knowledge is necessary to construct a valid ethnography, while also considering the converse side of the equation. The examination ultimately concludes with a synthesis of the opposing viewpoints and a personal reflection on the debate. Stereotypes as Innate to Human Perception One overarching challenge to understanding culture through experience is the argument that humanity is fundamentally unable to avoid the tendency to stereotype, or rely on biased information. Sociologist Charles Hurst believes that by assigning characteristics to large groups, it aids humans in simplifying, organizing, and predicting the society they function. Whatever the theory, it’s clear that stereotypes present a problem for society and ethnographic research as they seem an innate part of description and greatly distort anthropological information. Indeed, Geertz states, “Nothing has done more...to discredit cultural analysis than the construction of impeccable depictions of formal order in whose actual existence nobody can quite believe” (Geertz, pg. 18). As one can imagine this makes the challenge of understanding a culture merely through reading or television is difficult and must be experienced through direct experience. While the problem of stereotypes poses a problem for observing a culture through experience, a number of theoretical approaches argue that you can experience a culture merely by reading about it. While theoretical writings on this has been abstract, one might consider Requirements for Ethnographies (Marcus, pg. 66) that suggests to, “Map the relationship of these properties...not be structural appropriations of discourse formations...but rather as products of the complex sets of associations and experience which compose them.” Indeed, a great amount of post-modern literature demonstrates this self-reflexive pattern. This is a sense of ethnographic understanding that relies not merely on experience, but also requires elaborate and in-depth modes of expression. In this understanding the role of direct experience is arguably reduced to that of comprehensive understanding of a variety of perspectives. However, one must ultimately question: is it possible to say anything when, by theoretical acknowledgement, one must say everything? Tacit Knowledge One of the most mysterious and challenging elements to understanding a culture through experience is that of tacit knowledge. In one sense tacit knowledge means that it’s necessary for people to gain deep experience of a culture before they understand it. Tacit knowledge is where we perform certain actions that cannot be readily articulated. While there may be a deep meaning or interpretation, overall the answer is unknown. An example of tacit knowledge is where a tribe has to roll a huge boulder for a mile after the death of a tribesman. They cannot articulate why this is done; however, they know it has to be done. This makes developing a comprehensive ethnography difficult for the ethnographer without direct experience, as there is no easily explicable explanation. In great part this understanding of ethnography is encapsulated in a statement by Goodenough (Geertz, pg. 11) who argues that culture, “consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a way that is acceptable to its members.” Symbolic action is very important in interpreting the meanings of human behavior. As people see certain events take place they do not choose to act toward what the event is, they act to what the event means. In many cases one event can have several meanings to different cultures. This is very important to understand, however it can never be properly taken care of. This is tacit knowledge. The reaction is outside of our awareness and we have no control over what may take place. This is one of the most challenging parts of ethnography. Clearly taken this into account it’s necessary for one to gain a deep understanding of the culture through experience if they hope to truly understand it. While these naturalistic criticisms of the positivist approach have a strong rational foundation there are a number of problems for which the naturalistic method can’t account. This demonstrates that it might be just as plausible to understand a culture through viewing films, or readings on them. Consider, for instance, the nature of naturalistic investigation. Hammersley (1989, pg. 13) states: when setting out to describe a culture, we operate on the basis of the assumption that there are such things as cultures...While there may be nothing wrong with such cultural description, the kind of empiricist methodology enshrined in naturalism renders the theory implicit and thus systematically discourages its development and testing. The important point being made here is that while experience based ethnographic analysis requires the anthropologist to actually be in the field it still relies on an observational element. In a sense then researchers argue that research based on secondary sources or non-experience based data and research that involves naturalistic direct experience with a culture, both rely on the same fallible lens of interpretation. Challenge of Ethnocentrism As one advances past the minute elements of analysis one of the most prominent problems naturalist ethnographers face is the challenge of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism makes it so that merely understanding a culture through outside entities such as books or films means that the culture will be fundamentally misunderstood. While all anthropologists are aware of the need to remain culturally aware, a number of theorists argue, Karl Marx’s foundational notion of ideology most prominent among them, that it is impossible to simply remove oneself from one’s culture and understand an outside culture objectively. It’s notable that this perspective of ideology and culture has been challenged in Hammersley (1989, pg. 34) which argues, “As part of a so-called contemporary crisis of representation, work in political economy and other disciplines dedicated to macro-modelling and the definition of systems is moving in a less totalistic, more pluralistic direction-one more open to decentralized, mutable ideas of structure.” In either case, cultural behavior is what people do. In this sense ethnocentrism is something that is such an embedded part of understanding that even in directly experiencing a culture one’s values continue to disrupt their thoughts. Indeed, ethnocentrism in contemporary culture readily exists today and many people are unaware of its underpinnings. In this sense, the difference between experiencing or merely observing a culture through film and books has the same underlining effect. Indeed, Ethnocentrism is as fundamental to America as baseball and Christianity (a same formulation could be made for British and French imperial efforts). While the United States was founded upon people escaping religious and political persecution, its establishment relied on the same persecution on the native population: In 1839, John O’Sullivan wrote an influential article advocating the manifest destiny of America “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man (Stephanson, pg. 32).” The very idea of Westward expansion carries in it Western religious concepts of salvation that place the Anglo-Saxons superior to the indigenous populations. It is this belief that has existed from throughout American history and remains evident even in contemporary American society. Challenges of Ethnographic Language Trying to understand a culture from sources such as books and films means the individual will always receive a biased and politically mediated perspective. Ethnographies and theoretical papers contain language that is conceptual and interpretive. For example, the title of Alonso’s article The Effects of Truth: Re-Presentations of the Past and the Imaginings of Community is indicative of the power of words and the weight they transmit. Representations – does one take it to mean the literal definition as being: “a thing that represents another”. (Oxford Dictionary p. 873), or is it understood as “Re_.” “A hyphen is normally used to distinguish the compound from a one-word form (re-form = form again)” (Oxford Dictionary p. 850) and -- presentation – “a demonstration or display of material, info, etc.; a lecture” (Oxford Dictionary p. 807)? Representation through language, especially unequal language is common though not believe always conscious or deliberate. This is an understanding of ethnographic language that is contrary to the positivist formulations referred to in What is Ethnography? (1989) that attempt to develop a theoretically neutral observational language. Ethnographic analysis considers more than just small linguistic elements, but the entirely of the cultural or as some might argue ‘semiological’ system. As post-structural thought demonstrates that the effects of truth are variable, a number of questions must be raised concerning the ability to objectively qualify the cultural system. The dilemma then becomes, even if you are present, your own perspectives influence how the truth is presented. This can be a slippery slope because all language, especially descriptive language (and anthropology is highly descriptive as well as political) can then be questioned to the point of making something significant insignificant. We begin to question everything and this can become a paralyzing process. While these naturalist concepts of language and semiological analysis discount ethnographic research that isn’t developed from within the culture, or from extensive cultural experience, there exist a number of positivist approaches to meaning that can be implemented in establishing a foundation for non-experience based ethnographic analysis. In perhaps a hybrid understanding of the structural and post-structural accounts of meaning, researchers note that sometimes experiencing a culture through reading or film isn’t enough, but that meaning exists in the participation of the culture alone. Discourse groups create and establish styles of writing that are dependent on becoming fluent with the established patterns of that network. As an ethnographer it’s necessary to remain conscious of these boundaries when constructing text within that network. When considering the nature of the discourse network, researcher (Freed & Broadhead 1987) argues that the communally agreed patterns of communication actually influence meaning within that organization. For instance, in a company predominated by tax professionals, business negotiations and employee manuals will possibly reflect similar caution and professional standards that are characteristic of that discourse network. In this regard one can consider Marshall McLuhan (1969) who stated, “The medium is the message”. While McLuhan was seemingly referring to more broad means of communication, such as televisions vs. computers vs. books, the same underlining concept holds when examining the role of truly understanding a culture. The Possibility of ‘Thick Description’ The possibility of a ‘thick description,’ type of ethnography is one means by which the paralyzing deconstruction of the semiological ethnography can be gain a semi-stable footing. While there are a variety of contrasting views that argue along linguistic, ethnocentric, and cognitive lines that a viable ethnography can only be constructed from in-depth experience in the culture, Geertz has a more positive take on the ethnographic project. While he acknowledges that the difference between thick and thin descriptive elements, he argues that through detailed and diligent research developing a ‘thick’ ethnography is a possible outcome. For him, “Analysis, then, is sorting out the structure of signification.” (Geertz, pg. 9) While Geertz understands that ethnographic research requires on an observational component, he argues that through observation the universality of all cultures is generally perceived – in a sense “it dissolves their opacity” (Geertz, pg. 14). It’s important to note that while Geertz upholds the notion of ethnographic research, he distances himself from its ultimate truth claims. His concept of the ethnography is much more aligned with the concept of literary fiction, with the ethnographer assuming the role of literary critic. In a sense, Geertz does not deny that ethnography is confounded by an inability to objectively constitute the reality of a culture, but that the ethnography itself must recognize its limitations; other researchers refer to this concept as reflexivity and argue that it is the logic step in bringing together the conflicting positivist and naturalist perspectives. Ultimately, for Geertz it’s not that the ethnography itself is limited, but that in great part objective description, outside of the context event of the situation, is problematic. This opens ethnographic examination to both experience based research and secondary source data. Similar investigations, such as Life is Art (Willis), have developed this concept, and post-modern novelists and cultural critiques such as Frederick Jameson, notably in his Post-Modernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, have attempted to bring it to life. Conclusion The question remains: to what extent is such an experiential understanding of culture necessary, and to what extent can valid ethnographic research be attained from positivist accounts. While determining the extent that quantitative or qualitative descriptive measures are necessary in determining a culture is beyond the scope of this examination, however upon preponderance of the theoretical research it’s clear that a great many thinkers have proposed a hybrid model of understanding that contains within its construction meta-analysis or self-reflexivity. Whether this post-modern conception of a hybrid or artistic model of cultural understanding is sufficient, as Life as Art (Willis) asserts, or as Frederick Jameson argues an entirely new mode of discourse is necessary, is not understood. Ultimately, in any instance it’s clear that experience plays an important role in cultural investigation -- but just what is that investigation? References Alonso, Anam. (2006). The Effects of Truth: Re-Presentations of the Past and the Imaginings of Community. Journal of Historical Sociology. 1,1. Barton, David, Ivanic, Roz. Ed. ‘The social nature of writing’ Writing in the community Newbury Park, Calif. Sage Publications, 1991, Ch. 1, pp. 1-13 Beth, Linda. "The Reaction; Ethnocentrism on Meet the Press." The Reaction. May 10, 2009. . undefined. . Freed, Richard C. and Broadhead, Glenn J. ‘Discourse Communities, Sacred Texts, and Institutional Norms’ College Composition and Communication, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1987), pp. 154-165 Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. Hammersley, Martin. Ethnography Principles in Practice. Harris Joseph. ‘The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing’ College Composition and Communication, Vol. 40. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston: Houghton, 1987. Hurst, Charles E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. 6. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 2007. Jameson, Fredrick. (1992) Post-Modernism and the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press. Marcus, George. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). McKean, Erin. (2005) New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Spradley, James. (2008) Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Allyn & Bacon. Stephanson, Anders (1996). Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill and Wang. Willis, Paul. The Ethnographic Imagination. Zwick, Jim (2007). Confronting Imperialism: Essays on Mark Twain and the Anti-Imperialist League. New York: Infinity Publishing. Read More