Defining 'culture' as a preliminary means for discussion...

[Scott Mayers]

Culture:

Some set of behaviors unique to some person or group that defines who they are in life that are assumed to be consistent to some set of stereotype(s) of them based upon emotional evaluation. [i.e. 'favorable' or 'unfavorable']

By "in life", I mean the nessary environmental factors that may or may not relate to one's genetic roots, such as ancestral genetic inheritance, sex, or one's race or species.

For instance, if I like football, the activities I associate to its appreciation is a member of my "culture", rather than something my parents enjoyed by coincidence, or some potential link to some statistical association of my sex in contemporary times, or to the nature of me being 'white' or 'human'. It is irrelevant if my genetic factors have influence or not. Humans, for instance, are the only ones' eligible to "like football". We might consider football something 'cultural' to humans; but it is not particularly essential or we would have been playing this sport at the birth of the Homo Sapien species.

This thread is meant to open the preliminary arguments regarding 'culture' some of us may have contention with by proposing my own definition given here to start. So please assert whether you agree or not when posting and then offer some explanation should you disagree with this meaning. If you disagree, while proposing your own definition may be potentially useful, we need to determine some common shared understanding of the terms before we are effectively able to compete for differing views.

My major interest in this definition is that I see culture as a voluntary set of behaviors that are relatively 'artificial' rather than something genetically passed on. This doesn't rule out that there may be significant genetic factors of inheritance that influence what 'culture' is, but that our genetic associations are not necessary. We can choose to skateboard, for instance. This behavior will tend to favor those who have certain genetic propensities to be 'good' at it, but is not something that specifically gets genetically passed on like some 'skateboard' gene.

So, do you agree or disagree?

[Impenitent]

some traits are outside of culture...

some cultures are outside of culture...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

some traits are outside of culture...

some cultures are outside of culture...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture

-Imp

The term 'culture' has varying useful definitions in practice. I opted to put this under "politics" because I'm seeking some way to discuss what governments mean when or where they use this in law making and constitutions. If you deal with one who is deaf within government contexts, I would classify that under "disabilities" with respect to any health or general infrastracture needs. The 'culture' part of being deaf is not enforced but comes about by voluntary associations among those who are deaf and independent constructs they have a separate right to 'shape'.

If you think of language rights, a government can deal with general language rights but not with particular ones without creating biases. It isn't a bias to help the deaf or blind with respect to "communication". It is biased if a government demands special interest in shaping the natural evolution of language by imposing laws regarding the 'artistic' factors of them, such as a law that might demand Shakespeare to be taught for English as though the 'culture' of English is to be enforced, for instance. That is, "culture" of X is the artistic and relatively arbitrary behaviors, like the particular history or literature of X.

[Impenitent]

Shakespeare is taught to the deaf in public schools... they lose the benefit of hearing it with English accents- perhaps even as hearing it in Ebonics...

government demands influence culture constantly...

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

Shakespeare is taught to the deaf in public schools... they lose the benefit of hearing it with English accents- perhaps even as hearing it in Ebonics...

government demands influence culture constantly...

-Imp

Yes, governments as do ALL things in life anywhere influence culture. But I'm not sure what you are getting at particularly. (?)

I want to discuss eventually whether governments should create laws regarding "culture" as some governments, like mine here in Canada, does. I find the social upheavals today regarding 'identity' are about governing bodies permitting laws regarding the topic and its fuzzy term, "culture". So I need to find some agreement upon what such a term means or to whatever SET of definitions are a functioning part of the discussion should people disagree to the particular uses.

Note that I believe this issue is also what is related to many other issues, such as immigration, aboriginal people issues, environmentalism, social welfare, sex and race issues, art, and religion within the realm of politics.

Do you like my definition quoted above or prefer some other term or designation? I'm preferentially interested in the MEANING of my definition, not the symbol, "culture", as a word of other meanings. I can't simply discuss this using the word "culture" when others may not be interpreting my meaning correctly and I can't seem to get anyone willing to address this seriously when it is pivotal to resolving any problems concerning it.

[Impenitent]

government is a form of culture...

should people with the power to do so impose their will on others and call it enlightened or culture or whatever?

any action colors the picture... it's a matter of degree

canvas or palette or brush... which one are you?

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

government is a form of culture...

should people with the power to do so impose their will on others and call it enlightened or culture or whatever?

any action colors the picture... it's a matter of degree

canvas or palette or brush... which one are you?

-Imp

Your responses aren't exactly participatory. I asked about my given definition and you ignore it.

Government is NOT a 'culture' by my defintion. You seem to recognize the ARTISTIC meaning in your other sentences. So why would you interpret 'government' itself as culture? Do you think if 'culture' were ruled out as a function within government that it undoes its own existence? Governments aren't a subset of 'art'.

OR is this what you believe it sholuld be? Do you believe government is appropriate to be more about making rules about what is good versus bad art, etiquette, or religion? Do you think it is set up to censor our media to be sure we don't get influenced by the Devil?

[Impenitent]

government is a form of culture...

should people with the power to do so impose their will on others and call it enlightened or culture or whatever?

any action colors the picture... it's a matter of degree

canvas or palette or brush... which one are you?

-Imp

Your responses aren't exactly participatory. I asked about my given definition and you ignore it.

…

Government is NOT a 'culture' by my defintion. You seem to recognize the ARTISTIC meaning in your other sentences. So why would you interpret 'government' itself as culture? Do you think if 'culture' were ruled out as a function within government that it undoes its own existence? Governments aren't a subset of 'art'.

try acting outside the culture the government deems appropriate... beautiful criminal...

OR is this what you believe it sholuld be? Do you believe government is appropriate to be more about making rules about what is good versus bad art, etiquette, or religion? Do you think it is set up to censor our media to be sure we don't get influenced by the Devil?

thus spake the existentialist...

-Imp