Re: culture ... (aka there are/no cultures)

Andre Gunder Frank writes:

I dont deny existence of culgture, of cousre not, but evidence suggests that it is not a much causative element of what happens. Structure is mucg mnore so. and on sicne/culture see my

SPEAK TRUGHT TO POWER about NAKED SCIENCE AT

http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/online.html#current

about half way down

But he also writes:

"In reality, there are and have been NO civilizations, societies, cultures, ethnicities and even states in and of themselves. There are NO such essentialist intrinsically self-contained entities. To claim, identify, and study any such makes NO sense whatsoever and only beclouds reality. There are only connections and relations within and among such alleged civilizations."

"On "New World History"" (http://csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/on_world_history.html)

Luke Rondinaro Responds: Now this is very interesting to me. However, there appears to be a contradiction between Statement #1 and Statement #2. How to get around this contradiction? I can only guess “no cultures” in #2 must be referring to no actual essentialist systematic, structural units as such “out there.” But that would not out and out deny the existence of culture(s) per se if cultures are conceived in terms of meaning systems and “imagined communities.”

Yet, there are two problems with this conception.

(1) Social entities (ala civilizations, societies, cultures, ethnicities, and states) aren’t just cooked up by social convention & shared meaning systems in our psychologies as people. They are usually crystallized over time by our habits and behavior. Hence, they are solidified (and almost essentialized) over time through people’s recurrent activities vis-à-vis them. But how can they if they are not supposed to exist that way, and are supposed to be swallowed up in the structure/linkages of the World System? …

(2) “Structure” (ala Statement#1) is a fundamental of human social life and experience, it precedes the less solid, more amorphous thing we call “culture” (as that exists as a system of meaning). Yet, if structure is the primary reality of our human world, then how can “culture” be central as “meaning system” within our shared visions as a species? The engrained, solidified structure of human culture behaviorally should be predominant. Therefore, to some degree, cultures would have to exist structurally and distinctly in the world, irrespective of the World System and its linkages. So, I’ve got to ask, what is the structure of culture? …

All this brings me again to my harped-on point over the past few months. Given the way we keep using such terms as culture/cultures, societies, and Society, what do we really mean by them? Because if “culture exists” but it cannot be primary because “structure” is, then what are we really saying when we pronounce “there are no cultures, etc.”

And, AGF: By the way getting back to Boles response, would you say the WORLD SYSTEM is “Society?” … I’d would appreciate your feedback on this question. (Luke R.)

Luke Rondinaro,

Group Facilitator, The Consilience Projects