CULTURE
(Written and submitted as a final requirement in
Anthropology course/subject)
If you ask 20
anthropologists about the definition of culture, you will get 20 different
definitions. Nevertheless, these definitions would just highlight more or less
the same thing. Culture, although defined broadly most of the time, has main
characteristics. These characteristics are related to the article of Rosaldo, Idology, Place, and People without Culture,
specifically in analyzing the three cultural stages. Also, the definition of
culture mentioned in the said article makes it difficult to assume that there
are “Zones of Cultural Invisibility” in the context of migration.
Culture has several important characteristics.
First, it is learned. Culture is not
inherent to our human biology as human beings (Ott and Mack 2009, p. 125). The
nature of a human is acquired or learned through social interaction. One basic
example is the type of food that people consume and the way they eat it. The
second characteristic of culture is cumulative.
According to O’neil (2012), each
human generation has capability to discover things and make better
technologies. These new information are added to the ones discovered in
previous generation. The tools that are in trend before like the tape recorder,
camera, and telephone can now be found in the mobile phone. The third
characteristic of culture is adaptive.
Societies are able to adapt but selective on what to adapt. Culture is adaptive
to context like environment and political economy. One example is the Ampalaya
and Kangkong. These vegetables do not exist in cold places. For political
economy, one example is the position and responsibility in the household; the
father is responsible in giving money to the mother. Another characteristic of
culture is shared. Culture is
practiced by particular communities or groups. In Philippines, cultures differ
according to region. Cebuanos practice culture different from the Kapampangans.
Culture gives identity and a basis
for comparison. The cultures of Catholics and Muslims give them identity and their
own culture becomes the point of reference for comparing themselves to one
another. The sixth characteristic of culture is transmitted. This is concerned with the cultural or biological
transmission or continuity from generation to generation. Example is the custom
of most Chinese in marriage. Although some are not following this anymore, most
traditional Chinese parents still prefer their children to get married only to
another Chinese. They strictly implement this rule especially when their
ancestors firmly followed it. The last characteristic of culture is symbolic. It is a result of shared symbol systems that allow people to
communicate meaning to one another. For instance, in Philippines, when one sees
a jeepney, it automatically suggests that it is a symbol of transportation.
The characteristics of culture
mentioned have relation to Rosaldo’s article, specifically to the three
cultural stages. For the first characteristic, culture is learned; the four groups- Negritos, Hunter-horticulturalist, Wet
and Dry Rice Cultivators, and the Lowlanders learned their own culture through
socialization with the members of their particular groups. This characteristic
of culture is very visible in the case of the Filipino lowlanders where they
learned culture from the colonizers, particularly the Spaniards and the Americans.
The next characteristics are cumulative
and adaptive, and these are related to the social revolution. The technology
of the groups in pseudo-evolutionary ladder transforms and develops. The mobile
Negrito hunter-gatherers used tools like stones for their survival. The
horticulturalists learned to be sedentary and used hand tools for the
cultivation of their crops, and the lowlanders belonged in the post-industrial
phase (Boundless N.D, par. 1-4). Another characteristic of culture is shared. The four groups in the
pseudo-evolutionary ladder practice certain culture with the people similar to
them. The Negritos have their culture which is not shared or practiced by the
Lowlanders nor the Ifugaos or Ilongots. Culture gives identity. The Negritos and the Lowlanders have the identity of
being “people without culture.” This label becomes the basis for comparison
between the “people with culture” and “people without culture.” However, they
still have their own separate identity as Negritos and as Lowlanders (i.e
Negritos are precultural while the Lowlanders are postcultural), and the same
applies to the Wet and Dry Rice Cultivators and the Hunter-horticulturalists as
“people with culture.” Another characteristic is transmitted. The culture of each group is transmitted from
generation to generation. The last characteristic is symbolic. Language is one of the symbols that represent each group
in the pseudo-evolutionary ladder and each of them has their own language. The
most spoken language is the language of the Lowlanders since they occupy the greatest
part of the scale.
Culture, according to Rosaldo (1988), is
defined by difference. The differences help in making one culture noticeable to
others. This brief definition of culture makes it difficult to assume that
there are “zones of cultural invisibility” in the context of migration since there
will always be a disparity among people. The degree or the amount by which a
person differ may vary from small to big, but nobody is similar to another
person in all aspects. Thus, culture visibility is formed. This can be proved
through the article of Anika Liversage, Gender,
Conflict, and Subordination within the Household: Turkish Migrant Marriage and
Divorce in Denmark and the article of Josefina Tondo, Popular Religiosity and the Transnational Journey: Inscribing Filipino
Identity in the Sto. Niño Fiesta in New Zealand.
Liversage’s article supports the notion
that there are no “zones of cultural invisibility” in migration. In terms of
the constitution of the household, according to the narrative of Halil, the
male migrant-spouse, he came to an extended household, particularly a
matrilocal one. This type of household is uncommon in Turkey. Aykan and Wold
(2002) mention that 95% of the people who are living in an extended family in
Turkey are patrilocal. The access to public space also serves as an example. In
Turkey, men usually spend quality time far from the household, usually with
other men without worrying about their wives. However, in Denmark, the access
to public space is affected by the wife, specifically in the case of Halil. His
wife controls his mobility by commanding him to go back home (Liversage 2012,
p.1129). Moreover, Halil expected his wife to accomplish every domestic task
because this is what is usually done in Turkey. However, since both of them are
working, his wife also expected some sharing of chores. This can be considered
as a collision between Turkey and Denmark gendered norms in the household.
Halil, as a man, demands his right to be served by the woman at home. In the
situations mentioned, it is apparent that despite having the same nationality,
the difference in the culture of two Turkish is still visible in both of their
eyes, especially in Halil’s.
The next article also supports the
same idea. Tondo (2010) states that diaspora is often heterogeneous. The
Filipino diaspora’s social and cultural variety makes it difficult for the
migrants to unite (Werbner 2004, p. 547).
However, religion takes part in uniting Filipino migrants through a
mutual or shared faith experience, and devotional prayers. Here, the
“visibility” of culture is apparent in terms of religion. Since culture is
defined by difference, the difference between the non-Filipino Catholics and
the Filipino Catholics gives the latter a sense of self-identity (as Filipinos,
which the migrants only realize when they migrate) as it highlights the
distinction between their own culture and the culture of the non-Filipinos.
Some basic examples mentioned in the article are the religious icons and the
Sinulog. According to Tondo (2010), there is a presence of religious icons or
relics in a Filipino Catholic home which one cannot find in the home of
Anglo-European New Zealander Catholics. Moreover, popular religious traditions
which are celebrated by the Filipino Catholics like the Sinulog, make way for
the declaration of a shared religious tradition and social identity. In
celebrating fiestas like the Sinulog, homeland and diaspora are symbolically
tied, creating a new space and a new identity as Filipino Catholic devotees in
a foreign land. Hence, in the perspective of a Filipino migrant, he can clearly
see the difference between his own culture and the culture of non-Filipinos.
Like what was mentioned previously, culture gives identity and a point of
reference for comparison in terms of similarity, or, in this case, difference,
validating that there is a “zone of cultural visibility.”
Culture, more than the usual plain
explanation associated with it, has several characteristics that should be
considered. These characteristics play important role in analyzing the
precultural, cultural, and postcultural stages in Philippine culture. Also, it
is hard to presuppose that there are “zones of cultural invisibility” in the
context of migration. The
events mentioned above prove that the difference among people will always be
evident, may it be in terms of the way of upbringing, environment, or religion. Thus, culture,
which is defined by difference, will always be visible in the context of
migration making it difficult to assume that there are “zones of cultural
invisibility.”
REFERENCE LIST
Aykan,
H. and Wolf, D.A. (2002). Traditionality, Modernity, and Household Composition:
Parent-child Coresidence in Contemporary Turkey. Research on Aging, 22(4), 395-421. Retrieved July 5, 2015
Boundless
(N.D). The Four Social Revolutions. Retrieved July 5, 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/social-change-21/sources-of-social-change-139/the-four-social-revolutions-761-3396/
Liversage,
A. (2012). Gender, Conflict, and Subordination within the Household: Turkish Migrant Marriage and Divorce in Denmark. Routledge. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.681455
Ott, B.
and Mack, R. (2009). Critical Media Studies: an Introduction. Wiley. Retrieved July 7, 2015 from http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140516185X.html
O’neil, D. (2012). Characteristics of Culture. Anthro Palomar. Retrieved July 7, 2015
from http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm
Rosaldo, R. (1988). Ideology, Place, and People without
Culture. Wiley, 3(1), 77-87.
Retrieved July 5, 2015 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/656310
Tondo,
J. (2010). Popular Religiosity and the Transnational Journey: Inscribing
Filipino Identity in the Sto. Nino
Fiesta in New Zealand. Routledge.
Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2010.513401
Werbner,
P. (2004). Chaotic Diasporas. Encyclopedia of Diasporas, eds M. Ember, C.R.
Ember, & I. Skoggard, Springer, 545-552. Retrieved July 5,
2015
No comments:
Post a Comment