Seeking for the Definition of “Culture”: Current Concerns and their Implications. A Comment on Gustav Jahoda’s Article “Critical Reflections on some Recent Definitions of “Culture’”’

Regular Article

Abstract

This article takes as a starting point the critical analysis of attempts to define “culture”, offered by Jahoda in 2012. Basing on the observed proliferation of various, often contradicting, definitions of “culture” (for instance, trying to refer to its both internal and external aspects), Jahoda arrives at the conclusion that attempts to define the concept of “culture” are vain and useless and it is quite practicable simply to use the term without seeking to define it. We find it hard to agree with this statement. Elaborating on Jahoda reflections and drawing on the recent debates in social sciences, cultural studies and philosophy, we argue that seeking for the definition of culture is necessary in the context of contemporary development of social and humanitarian knowledge. Moreover, we claim that the debates about culture indicate the need for a large-scale methodological reorganization of the social and humanitarian sciences, in response to the novel ontological congruence between internal and external, the fundamental “ontological shift”, “reversing the poles” of the human-related reality. The human individual becomes its core element and pivot. Other “objects”, “external” in relation to the individual (for instance, social structures and institutions), undergo such massive and rapid changes that grow progressively fuzzy and sometimes even less “real”, comparing to the individual. The “inner” nature of the individual also transforms: from being “subjected” to think, act and feel according to certain external conditions, an individual becomes an Actor, who is empowered to change the environment following his purposive plans, desires and visions.

Keywords

Ontology Culture Internal-external dimension of reality Definitions of culture Actorhood Ontological shift Methodology of social and humanitarian knowledge 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the authors.

References

  1. Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Bromley, P., & Sharkey, A. (2017). Casting call: The expanding nature of actorhood in US firms, 1960–2010. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 59, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claycomb, R., & Riedner, R. (2010). Cultural studies, rhetorical studies, and composition: towards an anti-disciplinary nexus. Lanham, Md. : Lexington Books, c2010.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein B. (2014) What is individualism in social ontology? Ontological individualism vs. anchor individualism. In: Zahle J., Collin F. (eds) Rethinking the individualism-holism debate. Synthese Library (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science), vol 372. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  5. Francese, J. (Ed.). (2009). Perspectives on Gramsci: Politics, culture and social theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). The profusion of individual roles and identities in the postwar period. Sociological Theory, 20(1), 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gingerich, O. (1993). The eye of the heaven. Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. In Masters of modern Physics (Vol. 7).Google Scholar
  8. Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn: Beyond political-economy paradigms. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jahoda, G. (2012) Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture”// culture & psychology 18(3) 289–303.Google Scholar
  10. Kruecken, G., & Drori, J. S. (eds). (2009). World society: The writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lash, S. (2009). Afterword: In praise of the a posteriori: Sociology and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 175–187.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431008099646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer, J. W., & Bromley, P. (2013). The worldwide expansion of “organization”. Sociological Theory, 31(4), 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mironenko, I. A. (2017). Concerning the importance of ontological issues for cultural psychology: A reply to comments. Integrаtive Psychological and Behavioral Science., 51(3), 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2015). Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and the contemporary methodological crisis. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 8(4), 35–45.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, C. (2013). Disciplinarity and dissent in cultural studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Perrow, C. (2009). Organizing America: Wealth, power, and the origins of corporate capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pope, W., Cohen, J., & Hazelrigg, L. E. (1975). On the divergence of weber and Durkheim: A critique of Parsons' convergence thesis. American Sociological Review, 40, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roberts, J. (2007). The modern firm: Organizational design for performance and growth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Saxe, J. G. (1963). The blind men and the elephant. The Poems of John Godfrey Saxe, 135.Google Scholar
  21. Sorokin, P. (2017). Making global sociology in the context of neoliberal domination: Challenges, ideology and possible strategies. Sociological research online, online first.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780417743873
  22. Sorokin, P. (2018). ‘Global Sociology’from a comparative perspective: A multidimensional analysis. Comparative Sociology, 17(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Urry, J. (2016) What is the future? John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Valsiner, J. (2009). Cultural psychology today: Innovations and oversights. Culture and Psychology, 15(1), 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Valsiner et al. (2016). Psychology as the science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto // 13th Volume in the Annals of Theoretical Psychology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  2. 2.Department of General SociologyNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations