Defining Culture: Anthropological Perspectives and Debates
This paper critically evaluates the ongoing anthropological debate over how to define culture. Drawing on readings by Fox, Williams, Ortner, Moore, and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, the paper examines multiple competing definitions — from culture as a shared way of life and adaptive value system, to culture as a mechanism of self-distinction from the "other." The paper pays particular attention to how traditional definitions have excluded marginalized groups such as feminists and "halfies," and considers whether culture is best understood as a social, psychological, or power-driven phenomenon. The paper concludes that culture may remain inherently nebulous, as the difficulty of defining the self makes defining culture equally elusive.
- Introduction: The Challenge of Defining Culture: Anthropologists struggle to pin down culture's meaning
- Exclusion and the 'Other' in Cultural Definition: Feminists and halfies excluded from traditional definitions
- Western Culture, Dominance, and Adversarial Relationships: Western ideal challenged as cultural norm
- UNESCO and Culture as an Adaptive Value System: UNESCO frames culture as learned and adaptive
- Williams, Moore, and Ortner on Everyday Culture: Culture as ordinary, psychological, and power-driven
- Conclusion: Culture as a Contested Concept: Culture remains nebulous and theoretically unresolved
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes multiple scholarly voices — Fox, Williams, Ortner, Moore, and UNESCO — to build a genuinely comparative argument rather than relying on a single source.
- It consistently returns to a guiding critical question ("Can culture truly be defined?"), which gives the survey structure and forward momentum.
- The inclusion of marginalized perspectives (feminists and "halfies") adds analytical depth and prevents the discussion from defaulting to a purely Western-normative framework.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective critical synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the writer places definitions in dialogue with one another, identifying tensions (e.g., culture as inclusive creativity versus culture as exclusionary boundary-making) and using those tensions to drive the argument. This is a foundational skill in anthropology and the social sciences.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the definitional problem, then moves through progressively more nuanced positions: from traditional exclusionary definitions, to Western-centric critiques, to UNESCO's adaptive model, and finally to psychological and power-based accounts. The conclusion honestly acknowledges the irresolvability of the debate, which is itself a substantive scholarly position. Each body section corresponds to a different theoretical perspective, keeping the argument organized without being formulaic.
Introduction: The Challenge of Defining Culture
This paper critically evaluates the debate surrounding how culture is defined by various anthropologists, providing a synopsis of key readings on the subject. An attempt to define culture as something concrete rather than ambiguous is made by examining the various definitions offered by several prominent anthropological thinkers.
According to Fox (1991), anthropologists have attempted to define culture for centuries. These definitions have often relied on traditional groups that comprise certain characteristics — including norms and other classifications that encompass a particular class of people. But does this really define, accurately, what culture is and is not? Historically, anthropologists have attempted to uncover a concrete definition of culture, as it has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and otherwise misused for centuries. At best, one can attempt to explain culture rather than fully define it.
Culture may be defined, for most purposes, as the way of life that a person or group of people follow — as expressed by the language they use to communicate, the art and science used to express and communicate meaning, the thought processes used to perceive and interpret the world around them, and the value system that helps organize a group's inner life (Ortner, 2006). Language, art, spirituality, and science are all vehicles that individuals use separately to define the self, and communally, as a "culture," to communicate, express, and to perceive, interpret, and process the environment and the people around them. But is this all that culture is? Many would disagree and argue that culture is more exclusionary in nature. This is something that Fox (1991) successfully argues, at least when comparing feminist thought processes and perceptions with those of immigrants and others considered outcasts relative to what many perceive to be the "dominant" or more acceptable culture.
References
"A working definition of culture." Canadian Commission for UNESCO. Pp. 78–83.
Fox, R. G. 1991. Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe: New Mexico.
Moore, J. D. 2008. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. Altamira Press.
Ortner, S. G. 2006. Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Duke University Press.
Williams, R. 1989a. Culture is ordinary, chapter 9. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, pp. 3–14.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.