Cultural Theory Reading Group, 03.01.2007
The following is a summary of the discussion we had on this week’s reading: “Cultural Theory” by Thompson, Ellis and Wildavsky.
The session started with an overview by Mike of the three analytical levels supporting Cultural Theory: social relations, cultural biases and relational strategies. Human beings can transact in different ways and hold different constructions of how the world is, but the hypothesis is that there will be consistency between the three levels that makes people behave systematically. Steve talked about one main analytical level which is ‘strategies’, that is the set of core beliefs and justifications people mobilise across social contexts.
We brought into question the place of nature and looked at the typology on page 71. The diagram features different constructions of nature (capricious, ephemeral, benign and tolerant) which come each with a different moral justification. Steve and Mike related this to a longstanding philosophical debate on fairness and justice opposing “is” theories which preach a fixed form of nature to explain the workings of society (a society ruled by unchanged guardians), and “ought to” theories which produce normative claims about how the world should be and try to find a social basis for how nature legitimises systems of preference. Central to the diagram is the notion of ‘relative surprise’; i.e. the perception of how the world is does not relate to actual events but the events that occur have their own cultural type. How is an event perceived therefore depends on people’s cultural types. Mike argued that these are simultaneous aspects of nature which interact with the (four) ways in which we perceive the world. Steve stressed that talking about ways in which nature “actually” behaves must not be understood as a realist statement. He explained that the argument is that given the options in which we perceive nature, and to the extent nature behaves in ways consistent with these, we would have the types of responses (i.e. surprises) illustrated in the typology.
We also talked about the ways in which people advance their cultural justifications and simplify their arguments in policy debates. This discussion led us to the issue of subjectivity. Steve and Mike argued that the fundamental unit of analysis is not the individual but the social relation or “the form of social solidarity” people build. The individual is neither an analytic entity, nor is it an abstract structure. He binds himself into different forms of solidarity across his life, and adjusts to changes so as to avoid being marginalised in some forms of solidarity. Cultural Theory is therefore concerned with the process whereby people create solidarities and dissolve others, and the strategies they use to adjust their argumentation accordingly. Steve recalled the notion of the “dividual” (Kapferer and Mariott); people have multiple potentialities and speak in a way that is compatible with the system of social solidarity in place. Values are then stabilised in social interactions through our capacities and choices of where we want to place ourselves. Steve argued against the use of the word “belief” which could mislead us to conceive it as a stable conviction in people’s minds. He prefers to talk instead about “frameworks for self-justification” that hold other people accountable.
The final issue we raised was criticism to Cultural Theory. Critics of Cultural Theory often suggest its views on social organisation are too restrictive, but they conversely propose dichotomies or reduce social relations to only one model. Steve pointed out that the Theory came as a response to functionalist models of social organisation by giving an account of the different cultural contexts in constructive contestation and the way certain modes of organisation become stabilised as a result of the forms of solidarity supporting them. Mike agued that the wording “Cultural Theory” must not be referenced as “cultural theorising”, but as a “theory of socio-cultural viability”, or “a theory of plural rationality and interactive decision processes”. Steve perceives it as a “Theory of Solidarity” because it is framed in forms of social solidarity and focused on social relationships
./.