Posted by
Prof David West on
Mar 16, 2008; 6:06pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/questions-continued-reply-to-glen-tp525945.html
Major distraction prevented replying sooner.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:22:08 -0700, "glen e. p. ropella"
<gepr at tempusdictum.com> said:
>
>
I pretty much agree with your comments about cultural universals, at
least in so far as the term is intended to be used scientifically.
Putting on my Wittgenstein (and postmodern deconstructivist) hat for a
moment, the concept of a "cultural universal" is far more important in
the philosopho-politico-moral language game than in the scientific
language game.
"No cultural universals" is the antidote to the disease of ethnocentrism
and a slogan supporting the prime directive of cultural relativity.
Most specifically, the phrase, is the counter to the advocacy of
"natural law" and similar philosophical positions.
Whenever an assertion is made of the sort, "no parents kill their own
children, because 'mother love' is a natural law," the anthropologist
counters with an example of a (usually more than one) culture that does
precisely that. In this context, the abstraction vs. particulars of
expression is precisely the point, because the particulars refute the
abstraction - technically both abstractions, natural law and cultural
universal.
When it comes to eating children / your own children without changing
their type category - sacrifice is probably not a good example. I have
a recollection from college days, that societies that practiced
cannabalism for survival, food was food without regard to parentage.
You could make the same argument here - i.e. a category change from
"child" to "food" - but it would be less compelling than than in the
sacrifice example. In societies that practice ritual cannabalism and
necro-cannabilism - there is no category change involved at all. In
necro-cannabalism, in fact lineage is acknowledged and serves to set
priorities - I get to consume the remains of my parents and children
before the rest of the band gets their share.
>
> So, is that all you mean by "there are no cultural universals"? All you
> mean is that cultural universals are always too abstract and can be
> picked apart and shown to be (somewhat) local as they are applied and
> made concrete?
Yes, in a sense - but this admission is less than it seems. The domain
of anthropology involves investigation of the abstract (world view,
values, norms, beliefs, language) and the concrete (behavior, dress) and
mixtures of both (kinship, ritual). When it comes to the concrete and
mixed elements of culture, no one asserts universals - they would be
patently false. It is only in the area of the abstract that such claims
are made - in the form of "all cultures abhor murder." To deny cultural
universals in this context is simply stating that in the areas of world
view, values, norms, beliefs, and language there is no more universality
across cultures in the abstract than there is in the concrete. Even if
there appears to be syntactic commonality (all cultures believe in the
supernatural) there is not semantic consistency, each culture "means"
something different for the same syntactic expression.
> Given that we have no predicate for biological vs. cultural, this seems
> a bit sloppy on the part of the anthropologists. Not because of the
> ambiguity in "cause", but because of the circular rhetoric of holding
> all 3 premises simultaneously: 1) there are no cultural universals, 2)
> if a cultural universal is apparent, it's likely biological, and 3)
> there is no predicate to distinguish cultural vs. biological.
It is not that there is no predicate, it is a case of insufficient
evidence to decide how to apply the predicate. Anthropologists, like
Biologists, have a very clear idea of what belongs in and out of their
discipline coupled with a whole lot of things that might go one way or
the other depending on the results of future research.
If empirical data seems to suggest that a particular abstraction or
concrete aspect of culture seems to be present in all cultures, the
default assumption is the the commonality has a biological cause/origin.
A corollary to this default - in cases where both an abstraction and a
biological potential cause for the commonality, the biological is
presumed to be the more reasonable explanation. (For example the
Yanomami assertion that they are violent because there is a shortage of
women - cultural explanation; juxtaposed with the assertion that the
Yanomami are violent because there is a shortage of protein in their
environment - biological explanation; the latter is presumed to be more
reasonable.)
Sometimes it takes time to sort this issue out. Biology has only
recently started to provide the evidence that suggests "hardwired"
causes/origins for common supernatural experiences - neuro-theology.
The supposed "cultural" notions of beauty and sexual attractiveness have
been shown to originate in biological universals like bilateral
symmetry, and the ability to "smell" each other's immune systems.
Some of the most interesting, and unresolved, data is found in very
basic phenomenon. For example, color perception / color terms in
language. Cultures have 2 - n color terms in their language:
If they have exactly two terms they are always black and white (or
equivalents like, warm and cold)
If they have exactly three terms, the third term is always red - (B
/ W / R)
If they have exactly four terms, the fourth is always green - (B /
W / R / G)
Five, the fifth is always brown - (B / W / R / G / Br)
Six, purple - (B / W / R / G / Br / P)
Seven, plus, no pattern.
In the cases 1-6 terms, why the commonality? Biology in the form of
occular perception? Unlikely. Natural Law? Possible, but
unsatisfactory. Culture? Unlikely.
davew
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in
> order to enjoy ourselves. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFH1xQgpVJZMHoGoM8RArcsAJ9fIvHs8uGga98snKX+eitWtlwMmACffqJa
> ULuvgdH1LKA3vZbpKHfU3Jc=
> =rKPk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org