What is Culture? -- Gil Prost

In the early 50’s, anthropologists A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn took on the formidable task of trying to define exactly what culture was. So they went about collecting definitions from the leading anthropologists as well as non-anthropologists of the day. In 1952, Culture, A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions was published. In this informative book I discovered that there were 162 definitions of culture.

Despite their efforts, I came to the conclusion that no one was able to provide me a completely convincing, concise definition. But why? There had to be a reason. So what exactly is this phenomena we all "culture"? I finally came to the conclusion that the concept of culture was indefinable because it was an abstract noun. The concept of culture was similar to the concept of law which legal theorist H. L. Hart also declared to be indefinable.

"Abstract nouns have no physical existence, you can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste them. Abstract nouns are intangible." This means both concepts, law and culture, cannot be clearly defined because everyone inherently knows what they mean in the same way everyone knows that an elm is a KIND OF tree and a sparrow a KIND OF bird.

This of course presents a real problem for lexicographers who believe every concept can be defined, but end up in circular reasoning; for instance, need is defined as: ‘to be in need of,' the concept freedom as ‘liberty,’ and the concept tree by its numerous species. The concepts of 'kind' or 'genus' are at the heart of the human categorization of the world's species. As abstract nouns they are indefinable.

The Impossible Task: Being a Lexicographer

Lexicographers therefore have an impossible task of defining what is indefinable. In this regard, legal philosopher H. L. Hart notes: "[Any] definition of law that starts by identifying law as a specie or rule usually advances our understanding of law no further." The same can be said of culture. Unless concepts like rights, traditions, customs, kinship systems, principles, rules, obligations and duties be assigned to some genus that is already understood, our understanding of what constitutes culture , as well as law, would not be possible.

For the "primitive" Chácobo, both law and culture were described as jabi, 'our way of doing things.' What constituted their "way" were traditions, customs, allegiance patterns, obligations, rights, values, rules, prohibitions, and ascribed functions masquerading as 'duties.'

That being so, any anthropologist or missiologist who attempts to define culture in terms of its species, i.e., regulations, duties, obligations, rights, prohibitions, values, traditions, and customs, doesn’t really advance our understanding of what culture is. It would be like defining a tree by pointing to an elm, pine, or a palm tree, or defining people by pointing to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, or, to the Chácobo, Trobriands, Japanese, or Pacahuara, or by defining culture by pointing to an artifact or tradition.

Now let’s return to the 162 definitions culture compiled by Kroeber and Kluckhohn. Every definition of culture, with a couple of exceptions, was defined in terms of species, that is, in terms of customs, habits, behavioral patterns, institutions, artifacts, rituals, kinship systems, and so forth, all of which are learned. But if every abstract noun is intangible and indefinable, the same holds true for the concept we call culture which is an abstract noun.

Culture as an Indefinable Abstraction

I finally realized that culture for the Chácobo was an abstraction. It could not be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted. They called it “jabi,” their way of doing things. Their way of doing things, i.e., culture, was manifested obliquely in their customs, rituals, values, rules, rights, obligations, prohibitions, artifacts, and institutions.

In addition, their word jabi, a way of doing things, was also their word for law. Both exhibited similar qualities. But the moment a rule, right, or custom is codified, it becomes "law," something tangible and concrete rather than abstract. Supporting this perspective is theologian George Ladd who says: "Law is fundamentally 'custom,' hardening into what we call 'law.'"

While all mankind innately recognizes what LAW and CULTURE are, virtually all anthropologists and missiologists seem convinced these two related concepts can be defined in terms of their species. But because they are abstractions, Hart suggests they cannot. I would agree.

Without the abstract semantic super-category we call “genus,” a taxonomic category that exhibits certain qualities of being, it would be impossible to make sense out of the many species that exist in nature. Genus, as an abstraction, represents a class of things which have common characteristics and can be divided into different kinds.

Now while a materialist would classify PEOPLE as a KIND OF ANIMAL, no Chácobo would. For the Chácobo, PEOPLE cannot be reduced to a KIND OF ANIMAL because they exhibit qualities like language, culture, and the ability to categorize things according to their KIND. To classify PEOPLE as a KIND OF ANIMAL would be illogical, absurd, and crazy.

Without such abstract super-semantic categories like PEOPLE, ANIMALS, ANIMALS, BIRDS, FLOWERS, and TREES which exhibit inherent known qualities which are not learned, we would not be able to talk about related things.

Aware of this problem, Christian philosopher Gordon Clark wrote: “Unless we can use concepts and talk about groups of things, philosophy would be impossible. If only individual things existed, and every noun were a proper name, conversation and even thinking itself could not be carried on ...All thought and speech depend on classification, and no epistemology can succeed without something like Platonic Ideas,” the existence of a set of Universal Forms common to all people to which are attached what I would classify as Divine meaning-content.

When God created man, he created a taxonomist. This he did by equipping mankind with classificatory binary concepts like MALE-FEMALE, GOOD-BAD, SOMEONE-SOMETHING and PART OF and KIND OF. "All thought and speech depend on classification."

The Shaping of a Culture

So what is culture? Abstractly, it is a society's way of doing things. But each way of doing things, it is proposed, is shaped by two forces, first, by external forces which anthropologist Marvin Harris called "infrastructure" and which the apostle Paul called the "the material elements of the world" (Col 2:8), and, secondly, by thinking people whose behavior world-views are also shaped by "the Law in the mind (Romans 7:23).

Now for the materialist, our ways of doing things are totally determined by infrastructual pressures or SOCIAL EXISTENCE in a particular environment. In this case, in the words of existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, "EXISTENCE PRECEDES AND RULES ESSENCE."

In contrast, ESSENCE, for the theist, PRECEDES EXISTENCE. It constitutes the intrinsic qualities that reflect what it means to be created "in the image of God." Without ESSENCE, concepts like culture, nature, I, THOU, husband and wife, and Arts and Science would not exist. ESSENCE implies a priori knowledge of categories. This knowledge is acquired and brought to consciousness by being contextually "triggered" rather than learned.

Whereas the materialist claims all concepts, categories, values, and social structures are created by EXISTENCE, the concept-innatist believes: "When experiencing the phenomena of this world, we do it through the lens of our a priori categories of thought [i.e., ESSENCE]."

So when "God breathed into man and man became a living person," Adam's mind was not a blank slate. Instead, his mind was structured with categorizing forms. Without this a priori knowledge, it would have been impossible for Adam to classify the ANIMALS and BIRDS according to their KIND.

But the concept-innatist also acknowledges that whenever man and society DIVERGE from what the apostle Paul classifies as the "Law in the mind." one's cultural life-way will, on the whole, be shaped primarily by SOCAL EXISTENCE in a particular environment. Such a DIVERGENCE from Principles which Paul called "the Law in the mind" will produce both social disorder and cultural diversity.

Convictions:

A society's culture is all about a particular way of living that is at war with the "Law in our minds." Kant called it "noumenon," that is, a priori knowledge of principles which are fixed and constant. These innate LAW-PRINCIPLES in the mind are brought to consciousness by being "triggered" in a socio-linguistic environment. They are acquired, not learned.
Whenever these acquired DIVINE PRINCIPLES in the mind are rejected, a spiritual phenomenon called ETIC DIVERGENCE occurs. It manifests itself as a rejection of the fixed "Law Principles in the mind" and a rejection of Divine Meanings attached to forms common to all people and their replacement with meanings "belonging to the people." These meanings which are imported into the mind are derived from SOCIAL EXISTENCE and represent a step from ORDER to DISORDER.
Man and society, as they seek to relieve their existential anxieties produced by the material forces of a particular environment, have the freedom to reject what it means to be created in "the image of God" and DIVERGE from ESSENCE, the intrinsic qualities that make up PERSONHOOD.
ESSENCE promotes human freedom, SOCIAL EXISTENCE shaped by the material forces of the environment will reduce PEOPLE to functional THINGS and increases social disorder.
A society which has its life-way shaped by "the material elements of the world " (Col. 2:8) will be an anxious society.