Defining Culture: Anthropological Perspectives and Debates

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.

Exclusion and the 'Other' in Cultural Definition

According to the readings, many anthropologists' past definitions of culture have excluded two groups in particular: feminists and "halfies," defined as individuals whose "national or cultural identity is mixed by virtue of migration, overseas education or parentage" (Fox, 1991, p. 137). Culture must include these groups, because they face many dilemmas that distinguish their sense of self from the people surrounding them — dilemmas that anthropologists have often failed to recognize as capable of redefining what culture is.

Culture may be newly defined, in fact, as the relationship of the self as oppressed by the "other," or the majority. Using this concept, anthropologists may define a culture as the mechanism by which a group identifies itself as different from others — as the way in which the selves relate to one another or distinguish themselves from those surrounding them.

This may be how feminists distinguish themselves from one another, for example (Fox, 1991). This raises the question of whether one can define culture simply as how one distinguishes oneself from the "other." And who, exactly, determines who becomes or comprises the "other"? What is dominant and what is the minority? A culture may simply be a group of "distinguishing" characteristics. What, then, are the boundaries of one culture versus another, and who defines those boundaries? The readings from Fox suggest that adversarial relationships may exist within cultures and between the self and its perceived "other."

UNESCO and Culture as an Adaptive Value System

There are many in foreign countries who would argue just the opposite: that Western culture is far from the norm, but rather the exclusionary case — a culture that is lacking when compared in the broader sense, as it is the youngest of all cultures and therefore the least experienced and the least rich in tradition (Ortner, 2006). This perspective is worth considering as well.

The Canadian Commission for UNESCO defines culture as a "dynamic value system of learned elements with assumptions, conventions, beliefs and rules permitting members of a group to relate to each other and the world, to communicate and to develop their creative potential" (p. 82). This definition suggests that culture allows for creative potential within people, and that members of any culture are able to express and develop the self by identifying with their culture and fulfilling their potential in ways they might not be able to outside the network of their own culture.

This concept goes further in suggesting that culture is not something innate, but rather something adaptive — something learned. It is something that people grow into through tradition, heritage, and teaching. This implies that culture can change with time and can grow through activity, participation, and learning. It also suggests that culture can add positive value when approached with acceptance and gratitude. Viewed in this manner, culture is not a fixed boundary but a living, evolving framework.

Conclusion: Culture as a Contested Concept

Can culture truly be something that one analyzes and defines with finality? This is a question that anthropologists continue to pursue without arriving at concrete answers. Throughout history, anthropologists have attempted to define culture. It has been viewed as something creative. It has been defined as a reflection of the self and of the characteristics of the people living within a region. Some anthropologists characterize culture as the relationships and distinguishing characteristics of people living within a certain region, as compared with "other" people or the majority.