MichaelEmeryArt

Cultures-the Studies of it:

My self,

I for seem for some reason to have lived out-side of our culture,or transcended it enough,so as not have been caught by the many beliefs,   our culture can bind a individual to.
 
  I recently bought a book called : "The Tree of Knowledge" by Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela
 
  Chapter 1 starts with "The Great Temptation"
  A photo of the painting " Christ Crowned with Thorns" by Bosch, in the painting there is a figure from the lower right corner tugging at Christ to get his Attention, then the figure seems to be telling him " Now Listen to me,I know what I'm saying!"  This is the Temptation of Certainty.
  We tend to live in a world of certainty, of un-doubted,  rock-ribbed  perceptions: our convictions prove that things are the way we see them and there is no alternative to what we hold as true. This is our daily situation, our cultural condition, our common way of being Human."- excerpt from Tree of Knowledge" chapter 1

                                                                                              As in the book I will post this on different pages, if for nothing else, to remember the" Temptation of Certainty"

I think another thing we must remember,  A 150 years ago, we did not have electric power, Cars and Trucks,  antibiotics,  anesthetic drugs,  My point, due to our getting caught up in such a rapid change in culture,we have lost sight of the most important aspects of what it is to "Simply be human-beings"


     I ask myself here and now," We have had so many great thinkers and so many in our past,Whom were seemly so devoted,to the point of altruistic. working on being" Human" at least trying to define it!,.we know much more about "Laws",which has always been odd, just it to me seemed strange,I have often thought if," If one was raised properly ,shown the rules,disciplined by their Kin, as needed in a caring way! why do we need all these Laws?   Now,so many laws we fear them!        What are the obstacles?

         
Graphic Thesaurus for "hurdle" provided by FreeThesaurus.com

Max Horkheimer

“self-awareness in contemporary society is directly connected with belonging to some collectivity: to an age group or vocational group, and ultimately to the nation. The divergence between individual and group that is now disappearing continues to show up among stunted individuals, criminals, and people who can assert themselves only by opposition to everything else.”

M.I.A. Library: Georg Lukács

 

Georg Lukács Archive

1885-1971

“Mental confusion is not always chaos. It may strengthen the internal contradictions for the time being but in the long run it will lead to their resolution. ... Only the Russian Revolution really opened a window to the future; the fall of Czarism brought a glimpse of it, and with the collapse of capitalism it appeared in full view. ... at last! at last! a way for mankind to escape from war and capitalism.” 1967 Preface


Georg Lukacs - sketch taken from Hegel Made Easy of intellectual looking east european man in thick glasses

Biography

Early Works

The Theory of the Novel (1914)
Tactics and Ethics (1919)
The Role of Morality in Communist Production (1919)
The Moral Mission of the Communist Party (1920)
Tagore’s Gandhi Novel (1922)

* * *

from History & Class Consciousness

Preface (December 1922)
What is Orthodox Marxism? (March 1919)
What is Orthodox Marxism? (sections 1 & 2) (sections 3, 4 & 5)(March 1919) (alternative translation)
The Marxism of Rosa Luxemburg (Jan 1921)
Class Consciousness (March 1920)
Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat (1923)
  I:  The Phenomenon of Reification
  II:  Antinomies of Bourgeois Thought
    Subject & Object In Hegel
  III: The Standpoint of the Proletariat
   1. Immediacy and Mediation
   2. The point of Departure for the Proletariat
   3. Immanent Critique
   4. Dialectical Totality
   5. Humanism, Reification and Fetishism
   6. The Class Consciousness of the Proletariat
Legality and Illegality
(July 1920)
Critical observations on Rosa Luxemburg’s Critique of the Russian Revolution (Jan 1922)
Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation (Sep 1922)

* * *

Lenin – Theoretician of Practice, 1924
Lenin: A Study in the Unity of his Thought, 1924
Moses Hess and the Problems of Idealist Dialectics, 1926

Later Literary Criticism

Hölderlin’s Hyperion, 1934
Goethe: The Sorrows of Young Werther, 1936
Eulogy for Maxim Gorky: A Great Proletarian Humanist, 1936

from “The Young Hegel” (1938)

Hegel's Economics, Frankfurt period
Rationale and Defence of Objective Idealism, Jena 1801-03

Post-1945 Works

Dostoyevsky, 1949
Existentialism, 1949
Nietzsche as Founder of Irrationalism, from The Destruction of Reason (1952)
Preface to The Theory of the Novel (1962)
Reflections on the Cult of Stalin (1962)

Preface to History & Class Consciousness (1967)
The Pure Alternative: Stalinism or Socialist Democracy, from Democratisation Today and Tomorrow, 1968




Further reading:

Rosa Luxemburg Archive
Antonio Gramsci Archive
Hegel Archive
Marxism & Philosophy
, Karl Korsch, 1923
What is Proletarian Culture?, Trotsky, 1923
A Philosophical ‘Discussion’, Cyril Smith, 1998

Archive maintained by Andy Blunden.


 

Reference Writers: Jürgen Habermas

 

Jürgen Habermas Archive

1929-

Jurgen Habermas

“The system of social labour develops only in an objective connection with the antagonism of classes; the development of the forces of production is intertwined with the history of revolutions.” Knowledge & Human Interests


 

Biography

 

Knowledge & Human Interests 1968

Communicative Ethics, 1998


Further reading:

Herbert Marcuse Archive | Karl Korsch Archive | Georg Lukacs Archive | Erich Fromm Archive | Theodor Adorno Archive


 

M.I.A. Library: Herbert Marcuse

 

Herbert Marcuse Archive

1898-1979

“Hegel's system brings to a close the entire epoch in modern philosophy that had begun with Descartes and had embodied the basic ideas of modern society. Hegel was the last to interpret the world as reason, subjecting nature and history alike to the standards of thought and freedom. At the same time, he recognised the social and political order men had achieved as the basis on which reason had to be realised. His system brought philosophy to the threshold of its negation and thus constituted the sole link between the old and the new form of critical theory, between philosophy and social theory.” Reason & Revolution



Herbert Marcuse - sketch taken from Hegel Made Easy of old man with rather withered features

Biography

The Foundation of Historical Materialism, 1932

Reason & Revolution, 1941

Eros & Civilisation, 1955

One Dimensional Man, 1964

An Essay on Liberation, 1969

Lectures and Essays

Socialist Humanism?, 1965
Aggressiveness in Advanced Industrial Society, 1967
The End of Utopia, 1967
The Problem of Violence and the Radical Opposition
Questions and Answers
, 1967
Interview with Pierrre Viansson-Ponte, 1969
The Defense of Gracchus Babeuf Before the High Court of Vendôme, 1969


Further reading:

Herbert Marcuse By Douglas Kellner [off-site link]
Marcuse Home Page [off-site link]

The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Adorno, 1927
Karl Korsch Archive
Marx and Freud
, Review of Marcuse by Paul Mattick, 1956
Jean-Paul Sartre Archive
Georg Lukacs Archive
Jürgen Habermas Archive
Erich Fromm Archive
Philosophy of Right
, Hegel, 1821
Political community and individual freedom in Hegel, Pelczynski, 1984
Hegel & Modern Society , Avineri


 

Reference Writers: Leo Lowenthal

 

Leo Lowenthal Archive

1900-1993

Leo Lowenthal

“The academic disciplines which have been traditionally charged with the history and analysis of literature have been caught unaware by the impact of mass literature, the best seller, the popular magazine, the comics and the like, and they have maintained an attitude of haughty indifference to the lower depths of imagination in print. A field and a challenge have thus been left open and the sociologist will have to do something about them.” Sociology of Literature, 1948


 

Biography

 

Sociology of Literature 1932

Sociology of Literature, 1948


Further reading:

An Unmastered Past, Leo Lowenthal 1987 [off-site link]
Herbert Marcuse Archive
Georg Lukacs Archive
Enlightenment as Mass Deception
, Theodor Adorno, 1944


 

Theodor Adorno Archive

 

Theodor Adorno

1903-1969

Theodor Adorno

“All are free to dance and enjoy themselves, just as they have been free, since the historical neutralisation of religion, to join any of the innumerable sects. But freedom to choose an ideology - since ideology always reflects economic coercion - everywhere proves to be freedom to choose what is always the same.” Enlightenment as Mass Deception 1944


 

Biography

 

Enlightenment as Mass Deception 1944

Minima Moralia 1951

Late Capitalism or Industrial Society?, 1968


Further reading:

Max Horkheimer Archive
Leo Lowenthal Archive
Herbert Marcuse Archive
Jürgen Habermas Archive
Georg Lukacs Archive


 

More Links in Culture related Studys

Socialized Self: Herbert Blumer's Three Basic Premises

Herbert Blumer was a sociologist who discussed social research and symbolic interaction. As a supporter of George Herbert Mead's findings, Blumer was a big believer that individuals create their own social reality through collective and individual action. Through his works on symbolic interaction, Blumer was deemed by many as the leader of this sociological school of thought during his times.

1) "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."

An example of this would be a person who views climbing the corporate ladder and making it to the top as the key goal for life. Their views of people and things, and their ideologies are based on their goal. A person who wants only to reach the top of the ladder --to become a partner of a billion-dollar company-- may view power and loads of money as the most important aspect of their life. Additionally, they may view "free-spirited" people as lazy and detrimental to society.

The "free-spirited" person, on the other hand, probably views the world completely different. The free-spirit might have the belief that the corporate ladder is unhealthy for humans and that the idea of having fancy material possessions is harmful to society.

What a person believes or thinks about something is rooted in their meanings of it.



2) "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

An example for this would be America's (or Western societies') consumer culture. People in said societies like to buy stuff (and a lot of it!). The reason why they want so much is that society is always cramming products and wonderful images of having these products down their throats. Product placements are spammed all over television shows and movies, and musicians sing about them often too. But if you were to travel to a third-world country, the things that are important to these individuals are bare necessities, such as food, water, shelter, medicine, education, and safety.

The main takeaway is meanings of things, whether it is a material thing or a belief, vary from society to society.

3) "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

An example of this would be a person who is a non-conformist, such as a fiction writer or breakdancer. This person chose to go down the road less traveled as he decided to be an artist rather than an associate at a big corporation.

But when he is faced with tough questions about his decision by a friend, his mind ran through multiple questions and events (time constraints, how close they are, how well they know each other, how confident he is, etc.) that helped him arrive at an answer. This is interpretive analysis and everyone does it. And everybody's answer or decision will be unique, as it is rooted in their world and history.

Do agree with Blumer's Three Basic Premises? What about my interpretation of his work? Share your thoughts below.

If you want to learn more about Blumer, you can buy his collection of essays on symbolic interaction (Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method), at the following links:


Cultural pluralism


Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. As a sociological term, the definition and description of cultural pluralism has evolved over time. It has been described as not only a fact but a societal goal.[1] Cultural pluralism is distinct from (though often confused with) multiculturalism. Multiculturalism lacks the requirement of a dominant culture. If the dominant culture is weakened, societies can easily pass from cultural pluralism into multiculturalism without any intentional steps being taken by that society. If communities function separately from each other, or compete with one another, they are not considered culturally pluralistic.[2]

Cultural pluralism can be practiced at varying degrees by a group or an individual.[3]

Cultural assimilation

Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture resembles those of a dominant group. The term is used to refer to both individuals and groups; the latter case can refer to a range of social groups, including ethnic minorities, immigrants, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups such as sexual minorities who adapt to being culturally dominated by another societal group.

Cultural assimilation may involve either a quick or a gradual change depending on circumstances of the group. Full assimilation occurs when members of a society become indistinguishable from those of the dominant group.

Whether it is desirable for a given group to assimilate is often disputed by both members of the group and those of the dominant society. Cultural assimilation does not guarantee social homophily though as this article states, geographical and other natural barriers between cultures even if started by the same dominant culture will be culturally different.[1]

Social integration


Social integration is the process during which newcomers or minorities are incorporated into the social structure of the host society.[1]

Social integration, together with economic integration and identity integration, are three main dimensions of a newcomers' experiences in the society that is receiving them.[1] A higher extent of social integration contributes to a closer social distance between groups and more consistent values and practices.

In a broader view, social integration is a dynamic and structured process in which all members participate in dialogue to achieve and maintain peaceful social relations. Social integration does not mean forced assimilation. Social integration is focused on the need to move toward a safe, stable and just society by mending conditions of social disintegration and social exclusion social fragmentation, exclusion and polarization and by expanding and strengthening conditions of social integration towards peaceful social relations of coexistence, collaboration and cohesion.[2]


Symbolic interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to people's particular utilization of dialect to make images, normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others.[1] In other words, it is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shapes individual behaviors.[2]

Symbolic interactionism comes from a sociological perspective which developed around the middle of the twentieth century and that continues to be influential in some areas of the discipline. It is particularly important in microsociology and social psychology. It is derived from the American philosophy of pragmatism and particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead, as a pragmatic method to interpret social interactions.[3]


Herbert Blumer

Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term and put forward an influential summary: people act a certain way towards things based on the meaning those things already have, and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.[7] Herbert Blumer was a social constructionist, and was influenced by Dewey; as such, this theory is very phenomenologically based. Given that Blumer was the first one use symbolic interaction term, he is known as the founder of symbolic interaction.[8] He believed that the "Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to each other" (Griffin 60).[4] According to Blumber (86), human groups are created by people and it is only actions between them defined a society. He argued that with interaction and through interaction individuals are able to "produce common symbols by approving, arranging, and redefining them" (Blumer 86). Having said that, interaction is shaped by a mutual exchange of interpretation, the ground of socialization.[3]

Assumptions

Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or relation to something "real". People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality; i.e., they respond to this reality indirectly through a kind of filter which consists of individuals' different perspectives. This means that humans exist not in the physical space composed of realities, but in the "world" composed only of "objects".

Three assumptions frame symbolic interactionism:[2]

  1. Individuals construct meaning via the communication process.
  2. Self concept is a motivation for behavior.
  3. A unique relationship exists between the individual and society.

Having defined some of the underlying assumptions of symbolic interactionism, it is necessary to address the premises that each assumption supports. According to Blumer, here are three premises that can be derived from the assumptions above.[10]


Premises

Premise 1: "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in their world, including physical objects, actions and concepts. Essentially, individuals behave towards objects and others based on the personal meanings that the individual has already given these items. Blumer was trying to put emphasis on the meaning behind individual behaviors, specifically speaking, psychological and sociological explanations for those actions and behaviors are what Blumer focuses on.[10]

Premise 2: "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

The second premise explains the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans. Blumer, following Mead, claimed people interact with each other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions (Blumer 1962). Meaning is either taken for granted and pushed aside as an unimportant element which need not to be investigated or it is regarded as a mere neutral link or one of the causal chains between the causes or factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the product of such factors (Blumer 1969).

Premise 3: "The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters.

Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation (Griffin 62). Mead called this inner dialogue minding, which is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process[11] used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation. But first, we need language. Before we can think, we must be able to interact symbolically (Griffin 62). The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social construction of society brought on attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to understand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our lives at an early age, for instance, playing house and pretending to be someone else. There is an improvisational quality of roles; however, actors often take on a script that they follow. Because of the uncertainty of roles in social contexts, the burden of role-making is on the person in the situation. In this sense, we are proactive participants in our environment.[12]

Social exchange theory


Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. The theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology. Social exchange theory features many of the main assumptions found in rational choice theory and structuralism. It is also used quite frequently in the business world to imply a two-sided, mutually contingent and rewarding process involving transactions or simply exchange

Theoretical propositions

Ivan Nye came up with twelve theoretical propositions that aid in understanding the exchange theory.[8]

  1. Individuals choose those alternatives from which they expect the most profit.
  2. Cost being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the greatest rewards.
  3. Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs.
  4. Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long- term outcomes.
  5. Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes.
  6. Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval (or those that promise the least social disapproval).
  7. Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy.
  8. Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes.
  9. Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them.
  10. Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree.
  11. Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them. (Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.)
  12. In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures

Scenario of " From a wolf pack culture to a Aunt Colony"


A look at the different ways a culture,society,tribe forms,maintains,problems,which promote individual growth,value and worth.

History of slavery /Wikipedia

      

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.[1]

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient peoples.[2]

Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations, because it is developed as a system of social stratification.[3][4] Slavery was known in the very first civilizations such as Sumer in Mesopotamia which dates back as far as 3500 BC, as well as in almost every other civilization. The Byzantine–Ottoman wars and the Ottoman wars in Europe resulted in the taking of large numbers of Christian slaves, especially amongst the Slavic peoples of Central and Eastern Europe. Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600. David P. Forsythe[5] wrote: "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom."[6] Denmark-Norway was the first European country to ban the slave trade in 1802.

Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world (with the exception of penal labour),[7] human trafficking remains an international problem and an estimated 25-40 million people are enslaved today, the majority in Asia.[8] During the 1983–2005 Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery.[9] Although Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007,[10] in Mauritania it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labor.[11] Evidence emerged in the late 1990s of systematic slavery on cacao plantations in West Africa; see the chocolate and slavery article.[12]

Social stratification / Wikipedia

         

Social stratification is a kind of social differentiation whereby a society groups people into socioeconomic strata, based upon their occupation and income, wealth and social status, or derived power (social and political). As such, stratification is the relative social position of persons within a social group, category, geographic region, or social unit. In modern Western societies, social stratification typically is distinguished as three social classes: (i) the upper class, (ii) the middle class, and (iii) the lower class; in turn, each class can be subdivided into strata, e.g. the upper-stratum, the middle-stratum, and the lower stratum.[1] Moreover, a social stratum can be formed upon the bases of kinship, clan, tribe or caste, or all four.

The categorization of people by social strata occurs in all societies, ranging from the complex, state-based or polycentric societies to tribal and feudal societies, which are based upon socio-economic relations among classes of nobility and classes of peasants. Historically, whether or not hunter-gatherer societies can be defined as socially stratified or if social stratification began with agriculture and common acts of social exchange, remains a debated matter in the social sciences.[2] Determining the structures of social stratification arises from inequalities of status among persons, therefore, the degree of social inequality determines a person's social stratum. Generally, the greater the social complexity of a society, the more social strata exist, by way of social differentiation.[3]

Sub-Cultures

Burning Man

Burning Man started in 1986 as a summer solstice evening ritual burning of their artistic creation of an effigy of a man with a group of just a dozen people at San Francisco's Baker Beach soon became an annual event that over 4 years grew to more than 800 people. In 1990, in collaboration with the SF Cacophony Society, the event moved to Labor Day weekend in the Black Rock Desert, where it has grown precipitously from a 3-day, 80 persons "zone trip" to an 8-day event with 70,000 participants.

As the population grew by the mid '90s to top several thousands, the encampment started to be referred to as Black Rock City, it now has a year-round staff headquartered in San Francisco, managing an over 37 million dollar annual budget in 2016.

In 1997, six of the main organizers formed Black Rock City LLC to manage the event with Harvey as the executive director, a position he held until his death. He was also the president of the Black Rock Arts Foundation, a non-profit art grant foundation for promoting interactive collaborative public art installations in communities outside of Black Rock City.

Larry Harvey
Larry Harvey wdydwyd.jpg
Born()January 11, 1948
San Francisco, California, U.S.
DiedApril 28, 2018(2018-04-28) (aged 70)
San Francisco, California, U.S.
OccupationArtist, philanthropist, activist
Years active1986–2018
Known forCo-founding Burning Man

Larry Harvey (January 11, 1948 – April 28, 2018) was an American artist, philanthropist and activist. He was the main co-founder of the Burning Man event, along with his friend Jerry James.[1]