I do not obsess over the minor parts of my work agree or disagree


  • 4 Things to Try When Your Aging Parent Seems Irrational
  • Chapter 3. Culture
  • Formatting Answer Choices
  • Top 5 reasons why “The Customer Is Always Right” is wrong
  • If everyone hates it, why is OOP still so widely spread?
  • 4 Things to Try When Your Aging Parent Seems Irrational

    Distinguish two modes of culture: innovation and restriction. Discuss the distinction between high culture, pop culture, and postmodern culture. Differentiate between subculture and counterculture.

    Understand the role of globalization in cultural change and local lived experience. Describe culture as a form of restriction on social life. Explain the implications of rationalization and consumerism. Discuss the major theoretical approaches to cultural interpretation. Introduction to Culture Figure 3. Fast food nation. Generally, we do not think about rules in a fast food restaurant because they are designed to be casual, quick, and convenient.

    But if you look around one on a typical weekday, you will see people acting as if they were trained for the role of fast food customer. They stand in line, pick their items from overhead menus before they order, swipe debit cards to pay, and stand to one side to collect trays of food.

    After a quick meal, customers wad up their paper wrappers and toss them into garbage cans. If you want more insight into these unwritten rules, think about what would happen if you behaved according to some other standards. Chances are you will elicit hostile responses from the restaurant employees and your fellow customers. Although the rules are not written down, you will have violated deep seated tacit norms that govern behaviour in fast food restaurants. This example reflects a broader theme in the culture of food and diet.

    What are the rules that govern what, when, and how we eat? Michael Pollan b. Despite eating foods that many North Americans think of as unhealthy — butter, wheat, triple-cream cheese, foie gras, wine, etc.

    Pollan, Their cultural rules fix and constrain what people consider as food and how people consume food. The national cuisine and eating habits of France are well established, oriented to pleasure and tradition, and as Pollan argues, well integrated into French cultural life as a whole.

    Figure 3. While an alarming number of North American meals are eaten in cars 19 percent, according to Pollan , the counter-trend is the obsession with nutritional science. Instead of an orientation to food based on cultural tradition and pleasure, people are oriented to food in terms of its biochemical constituents calories, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, omega fatty acids, saturated and unsaturated fats, etc.

    There are Atkins diets, zone diets, Mediterranean diets, paleolithic diets, vegan diets, gluten free diets, Weight Watchers diets, raw food diets, etc.

    While each type of diet claims scientific evidence to support its health and other claims, evidence which is disturbingly contradictory, essentially the choice of diet revolves around the cultural meanings attributed to food and its nutritional components: that taste is not a true guide to what should be eaten; that one should not simply eat what one enjoys; that the important components of food cannot be seen or tasted, but are discernible only in scientific laboratories; and that experimental science has produced rules of nutrition that will prevent illness and encourage longevity.

    Levenstein as cited in Pollan, It is important to note that food culture and diet are not infinitely malleable, however. There is an underlying biological reality of nutrition that defines the parameters of dietary choice.

    As a result, he gained 24 pounds, increased his cholesterol and fat accumulation in his liver, and experienced mood swings and sexual dysfunction.

    It is clear that one cannot survive on fast food alone; although many teenagers and university students have been known to try.

    Kentucky Fried Chicken instant mashed potato, Diet is a product of culture. It is a product of the different meanings we attribute to food and to the relationship we have with our bodies. The significant point is that while diet is a response to the fundamental conditions of biological life, diet is also a tremendous site of innovation and diversity.

    Culture in general is a site of two opposing tendencies: one is the way that cultures around the world lay down sets of rules or norms which constrain, restrict, habitualize, and fix forms of life; the other is the way that cultures produce endlessly innovative and diverse solutions to problems like nutrition. Cultures both constrain and continually go beyond constraints. In everyday conversation, people rarely distinguish between these terms, but they have slightly different meanings, and the distinction is important to how sociologists examine culture.

    If culture refers to the beliefs, artifacts, and ways of life that a social group shares, a society is a group that interacts within a common bounded territory or region. To clarify, a culture represents the beliefs, practices, and material artifacts of a group, while a society represents the social structures, processes, and organization of the people who share those beliefs, practices, and material artifacts. Neither society nor culture could exist without the other, but we can separate them analytically.

    In this chapter, we examine the relationship between culture and society in greater detail, paying special attention to the elements and forces that shape culture, including diversity and cultural changes. A final discussion touches on the different theoretical perspectives from which sociologists research culture. What Is Culture? What is culture? Since the dawn of Homo sapiens, nearly , years ago, people have grouped together into communities in order to survive.

    Living together, people developed forms of cooperation which created the common habits, behaviours, and ways of life known as culture — from specific methods of childrearing to preferred techniques for obtaining food. Peter Berger b. Unlike other animals, humans lack the biological programming to live on their own.

    They require an extended period of dependency in order to survive in the environment. The creation of culture makes this possible by providing a protective shield against the harsh impositions of nature. Culture provides the ongoing stability that enables human existence. This means, however, that the human environment is not nature per se but culture itself. Over the history of humanity, this has lead to an incredible diversity in how humans have imagined and lived life on Earth, the sum total of which Wade Davis b.

    It is our collective cultural heritage as a species. A single culture, as the sphere of meanings shared by a single social group, is the means by which that group makes sense of the world and of each other. But there are many cultures and many ways of making sense of the world. Through a multiplicity of cultural inventions, human societies have adapted to the environmental and biological conditions of human existence in many different ways. What do we learn from this?

    Firstly, almost every human behaviour, from shopping to marriage to expressions of feelings, is learned. In Canada, people tend to view marriage as a choice between two people based on mutual feelings of love. In other nations and in other times, marriages have been arranged through an intricate process of interviews and negotiations between entire families, or in other cases, through a direct system such as a mail-order bride.

    To someone raised in Winnipeg, the marriage customs of a family from Nigeria may seem strange or even wrong. Conversely, someone from a traditional Kolkata family might be perplexed with the idea of romantic love as the foundation for the lifelong commitment of marriage.

    In other words, the way in which people view marriage depends largely on what they have been taught. Behaviour based on learned customs is, therefore, not a bad thing, but it does raise the problem of how to respond to cultural differences.

    The cultural norms governing public transportation vary in Canada, Austria, Mumbai, and Tokyo. How would a visitor from a rural Canadian town act and feel on this crowded Tokyo train? The existence of different cultural practices reveals the way in which societies find different solutions to real life problems.

    The different forms of marriage are various solutions to a common problem, the problem of organizing families in order to raise children and reproduce the species. The basic problem is shared by the different societies, but the solutions are different. This illustrates the point that culture in general is a means of solving problems. It is a tool composed of the capacity to abstract and conceptualize, to cooperate and coordinate complex collective endeavours, and to modify and construct the world to suit human purposes.

    It is the repository of creative solutions, techniques, and technologies humans draw on when confronting the basic shared problems of human existence. Culture is, therefore, key to the way humans, as a species, have successfully adapted to the environment.

    The existence of different cultures refers to the different means by which humans use innovation to free themselves from biological and environmental constraints. Thirdly, culture is also restraining. Cultures retain their distinctive patterns through time.

    In global capitalism, although Canadian culture, French culture, Malaysian culture and Kazakhstani culture will share certain features like rationalization and commodification, they also differ in terms of languages, beliefs, dietary practices, and other ways of life.

    They adapt and respond to capitalism in unique manners according to their specific shared heritages. Local cultural forms have the capacity to restrain the changes produced by globalization. On the other hand, the diversity of local cultures is increasingly limited by the homogenizing pressures of globalization. Economic practices that prove inefficient or uncompetitive in the global market disappear.

    The meanings of cultural practices and knowledges change as they are turned into commodities for tourist consumption or are patented by pharmaceutical companies. Globalization increasingly restrains cultural forms, practices, and possibilities.

    There is a dynamic within culture of innovation and restriction. The cultural fabric of shared meanings and orientations that allows individuals to make sense of the world and their place within it can either change with contact with other cultures or with changes in the socioeconomic formation, allowing people to reinvision and reinvent themselves, or it can remain rigid and restrict change.

    Many contemporary issues to do with identity and belonging, from multiculturalism and hybrid identities to religious fundamentalism, can be understood within this dynamic of innovation and restriction. Similarly, the effects of social change on ways of life, from the new modes of electronic communication to failures to respond to climate change, involve a tension between innovation and restriction.

    Human experience is essentially meaningful, and culture is the source of the meanings that humans share. What are the consequences of this emphasis on the meaningfulness of human experience? What elements of social life become visible if we focus on the social processes whereby meanings are produced and circulated? Culture is the term used to describe this dimension of meaningful collective existence.

    Culture refers to the shared symbols that people create to solve real-life problems. What this perspective entails is that human experience is essentially meaningful or cultural. Human social life is necessarily conducted through the meanings humans attribute to things, actions, others, and themselves. In a sense, people do not live in direct, immediate contact with the world and each other; instead, they live only indirectly through the medium of the shared meanings provided by culture.

    This mediated experience is the experience of culture. The sociology of culture is, therefore, concerned with the study of how things and actions assume meanings, how these meanings orient human behaviour, and how social life is organized around and through meaning.

    Chapter 3. Culture

    Essays, opinions, and advice on the act of computer programming from Stack Overflow. Search for: code-for-a-living September 2, If everyone hates it, why is OOP still so widely spread?

    OOP has been wildly successful. But was the success just a coincidence? And can it still offer something unique in that other programming paradigms cannot? In contrast, many people who have experience with computers initially think there is something strange about object oriented systems. If they are used to top-down programming or functional programming, which treats elements of code as precise mathematical functions, it takes some getting used to. After an initial hype period had promised improvements for modularising and organising large codebases, the idea was over applied.

    With OOP being followed by OOA object-oriented analysis and OOD object-oriented design it soon felt like everything you did in software had to be broken down to objects and their relationships to each other. Then the critics arrived on the scene, some of them quite disappointed. Some claimed that under OOP writing tests is harder and it requires extra care to refactor. There is the overhead when reusing code that the creator of Erlang famously described as a case when you wanted a banana but you got a gorilla holding the banana.

    Everything comes with an implicit, inescapable environment. OOP is still one of the dominant paradigms right now. But that might be due to the success of languages who happen to be OOP. Asking why so many widely-used languages are OOP might be mixing up cause and effect. Richard Feldman argues in his talk that it might just be coincidence.

    Millions of developers quickly moved to Java due to its exclusive integration in web browsers at the time. Seen this way, OOP seems to just be hitching a ride, rather than driving the success.

    What can OOP do that is unique to it? There are some valuable aspects to OOP, some of which keep it omnipresent even when it has its drawbacks. This means that data is generally hidden from other parts of a language—placed in a capsule, if you will.

    OOP encapsulates data by default; objects contain both the data and the methods that affect that data, and good OOP practice means you provide getter and setter methods to control access to that data.

    This protects mutable data from being changed willy nilly, and makes application data safer. Supposedly, it is one of the greatest benefits of OOP. Even though it is most commonly associated with object-oriented programming, the concept itself is in fact separate from it and can be implemented without using objects. Abstraction is a complementary concept to encapsulation here; where encapsulation hides internal information, abstraction provides an easier-to-use public interface to data.

    In any case, it is not uniquely a OOP feature and can be done with modules isolating a system function or a set of data and operations on those data within a module.

    Because objects can be created as subtypes of other objects, they can inherit variables and methods from those objects. This allows objects to support operations defined by anterior types without having to provide their own definition.

    The goal is to not repeat yourself—multiple uses of the same code is hard to maintain. But functional programming can also achieve DRY through reusable functions. Same goes for memory efficiency. Even though inheritance does contribute to that, so does the concept of closures in FP.

    While inheritance is a OOP specific idea, some argue its benefits can be better achieved by composition. If you lose inheritance , objects and methods quickly dissolve as the syntactic sugar for structs and procedures they are. Note that: Inheritance is also necessary to allow polymorphism, which we discuss below.

    There are many forms of polymorphism. Object oriented programming tends to use a lot of subtyping polymorphism and ad-hoc polymorphism, but again, this is not a concept limited to OOP. Seems like in , there is not so much that OOP can do that other programming paradigms cannot, and a good programmer will use strategies from multiple paradigms together in the battle against complexity.

    For example, if you look at the tags most often appearing in relation to a question tagged under OOP vs functional programming , JavaScript pops up in both. OOP has, however, been wildly successful. It may be that this success is a consequence of a massive industry that supports and is supported by OOP.

    So what about the developers themselves? Our Developer Survey this year shows that they are gaining more and more purchasing influence. Well, if we also look at what developers prefer to work with, Haskell and Scala are among the most loved programming languages. Scala gets you the second highest salary. So maybe with more FP evangelism, they will climb the list of most popular languages, too. There is some movement though, big companies like Twitter are running their backend almost entirely on Scala code.

    Facebook who has been recently applying Haskell and many of the major OOP languages are also adopting functional features. JavaScript is increasingly functional despite the introduction of classes in ES6.

    Swift may be the happy medium between an object-oriented and a functional language. Special thanks to Ryan , whose great insights and edits helped with this post. The Stack Overflow Podcast is a weekly conversation about working in software development, learning to code, and the art and culture of computer programming.

    Formatting Answer Choices

    OOP has been wildly successful. But was the success just a coincidence? And can it still offer something unique in that other programming paradigms cannot? In contrast, many people who have experience with computers initially think there is something strange about object oriented systems.

    If they are used to top-down programming or functional programming, which treats elements of code as precise mathematical functions, it takes some getting used to.

    After an initial hype period had promised improvements for modularising and organising large codebases, the idea was over applied. With OOP being followed by OOA object-oriented analysis and OOD object-oriented design it soon felt like everything you did in software had to be broken down to objects and their relationships to each other. Then the critics arrived on the scene, some of them quite disappointed. Some claimed that under OOP writing tests is harder and it requires extra care to refactor.

    There is the overhead when reusing code that the creator of Erlang famously described as a case when you wanted a banana but you got a gorilla holding the banana. Everything comes with an implicit, inescapable environment. OOP is still one of the dominant paradigms right now. But that might be due to the success of languages who happen to be OOP. Asking why so many widely-used languages are OOP might be mixing up cause and effect. Richard Feldman argues in his talk that it might just be coincidence.

    Millions of developers quickly moved to Java due to its exclusive integration in web browsers at the time. Seen this way, OOP seems to just be hitching a ride, rather than driving the success.

    What can OOP do that is unique to it? There are some valuable aspects to OOP, some of which keep it omnipresent even when it has its drawbacks. This means that data is generally hidden from other parts of a language—placed in a capsule, if you will.

    OOP encapsulates data by default; objects contain both the data and the methods that affect that data, and good OOP practice means you provide getter and setter methods to control access to that data. This protects mutable data from being changed willy nilly, and makes application data safer. Supposedly, it is one of the greatest benefits of OOP. Even though it is most commonly associated with object-oriented programming, the concept itself is in fact separate from it and can be implemented without using objects.

    Abstraction is a complementary concept to encapsulation here; where encapsulation hides internal information, abstraction provides an easier-to-use public interface to data. In any case, it is not uniquely a OOP feature and can be done with modules isolating a system function or a set of data and operations on those data within a module. Because objects can be created as subtypes of other objects, they can inherit variables and methods from those objects.

    On the other hand, the diversity of local cultures is increasingly limited by the homogenizing pressures of globalization. Economic practices that prove inefficient or uncompetitive in the global market disappear. The meanings of cultural practices and knowledges change as they are turned into commodities for tourist consumption or are patented by pharmaceutical companies. Globalization increasingly restrains cultural forms, practices, and possibilities.

    There is a dynamic within culture of innovation and restriction. The cultural fabric of shared meanings and orientations that allows individuals to make sense of the world and their place within it can either change with contact with other cultures or with changes in the socioeconomic formation, allowing people to reinvision and reinvent themselves, or it can remain rigid and restrict change. Many contemporary issues to do with identity and belonging, from multiculturalism and hybrid identities to religious fundamentalism, can be understood within this dynamic of innovation and restriction.

    Similarly, the effects of social change on ways of life, from the new modes of electronic communication to failures to respond to climate change, involve a tension between innovation and restriction.

    Human experience is essentially meaningful, and culture is the source of the meanings that humans share. What are the consequences of this emphasis on the meaningfulness of human experience? What elements of social life become visible if we focus on the social processes whereby meanings are produced and circulated? Culture is the term used to describe this dimension of meaningful collective existence.

    Culture refers to the password cracker for android symbols that people create to solve real-life problems. What this perspective entails is that human experience is essentially meaningful or cultural.

    Human social life is necessarily conducted through the meanings humans attribute to things, actions, others, and themselves. In a sense, people do not live in direct, immediate contact with the world and each other; instead, they live only indirectly through the medium of the shared meanings provided by culture. This mediated experience is the experience of culture. The sociology of culture is, therefore, concerned with the study of how things and actions assume meanings, how these meanings orient human behaviour, and how social life is organized around and through meaning.

    Max Weber notes that it is possible to imagine situations in which human experience appears direct and unmediated; for example, someone taps your knee and your leg jerks forward, or you are riding your bike and get hit by a carpp. In these situations, experience seems purely physical, unmediated.

    Yet when we assimilate these experiences into our lives, we do so by making them meaningful events. By tapping your knee, the doctor is looking for signs that indicate the functioning of your nervous system.

    She or he is literally reading the reactions as symbolic events and assigning them meaning within the context of an elaborate cultural map of meaning: the modern biomedical understanding of the body.

    It is quite possible that if you were flying through the air after being hit by a car, you would not be thinking or attributing meaning to the event. You would be simply a physical projectile. But afterwards, when you reconstruct the story for your friends, the police, or the insurance company, the event would become part of your life through this narration of what happened. Equally important to note here is that the meaning of these events changes depending on the cultural context.

    A doctor of traditional Chinese medicine would read the knee reflex differently than a graduate of the UBC medical program. The story and meaning of the car accident changes if it is told to a friend as opposed to a policeman or an insurance adjuster. The problem of meaning in sociological analysis, then, is to determine how events or things acquire meaning e. Sociological research into culture studies all of these problems of meaning. Culture and Biology The central argument put forward in this chapter is that human social life is essentially meaningful and, therefore, has to be understood first through an analysis of the cultural practices and institutions that produce meaning.

    Nevertheless, a fascination in contemporary culture persists for finding biological or genetic explanations for complex human behaviours that would seem to contradict the emphasis on culture.

    Top 5 reasons why “The Customer Is Always Right” is wrong

    In one study, Swiss researchers had a group of women smell unwashed T-shirts worn by different men. The researchers argued that sexual attraction had a biochemical basis in the histo-compatibility signature that the women detected in the male pheromones left behind on the T-shirts. Women were attracted to the T-shirts of the men whose immune systems differed from their own Wedekind et al. In another study, Dean Hamer b. Therefore, women were thought to be able to use both sides of their brains simultaneously when processing visuo-spatial information, whereas men used only their left hemisphere.

    In each of these three cases, the authors reduced a complex cultural behaviour — sexual attraction, homosexuality, cognitive ability — to a simple biological determination. Nevertheless, they follow a logic of explanation known as biological determinism, which argues that the forms of human society and human behaviour are determined by biological mechanisms like genetics, instinctual behaviours, or evolutionary advantages.

    Within sociology, this type of framework underlies the paradigm of sociobiology, which provides biological explanations for the evolution of human behaviour and social organization. Sociobiological propositions are constructed in three steps Lewontin, First they identify an aspect of human behaviour which appears to be universal, common to all people in all times and places.

    In all cultures the laws of sexual attraction — who is attracted to whom — are mysterious, for example. Second, they assume that this universal trait must be coded in the DNA of the species. There is a gene for detecting histo-compatibility that leads instinctively to mate selection.

    Third, they make an argument for why this behaviour or characteristic increases the chances of survival for individuals and, therefore, creates reproductive advantage. Mating with partners whose immune systems complement your own leads to healthier offspring who survive to reproduce your genes. Is male aggression innate?

    Another implication of his argument was that if aggression is instinctual, then the idea that individuals, militant groups, or states could be held responsible for acts of violence or war loses its validity.

    However, a central problem of sociobiology as a type of sociological explanation is that while human biology does not vary greatly throughout history or between cultures, the forms of human association do vary extensively.

    It is difficult to account for the variability of social phenomena by using a universal biological mechanism to explain them. Even something like the aggressive tendency in males, which on the surface has an intuitive appeal, does not account for the multitude of different forms and practices of aggression, let alone the different social circumstances in which aggression is manifested or provoked.

    It does not account for why some men are aggressive sometimes and not at other times, or why some men are not aggressive at all. If testosterone is the key mechanism of male aggression, it does not account for the fact that both men and women generate testosterone in more or less equal quantities. Nor does it explain the universal tendencies of all societies to develop sanctions and norms to curtail violence. To suggest that aggression is an innate biological characteristic means that it does not vary greatly throughout history, nor between cultures, and is impervious to the social rules that restrict it in all societies.

    Ultimately, this means that there is no point in trying change it despite the evidence that aggression in individuals and societies can be changed. This observation about a seemingly straightforward biological behaviour suggests that smiling is inborn, a muscular reflex based on neurological connections. However, the smile of the newborn is not used to convey emotions. It occurs spontaneously during rapid eye movement REM sleep. Only when the baby matures and begins to interact with his or her environment and caretakers does the smile begin to represent a response to external stimuli.

    Moreover, from the age of 6 months to 2 years, the smile itself changes physically: Different muscle groups are used, and different facial expressions are blended with it surprise, anger, excitement. The smile becomes more complex and individualized. Therefore, social scientists see explanations of human behaviour based on biological determinants as extremely limited in scope and value. These sometimes radical differences between cultures have to full script of descendants 2 accounted for instead by their distinct processes of socialization through which individuals learn how to participate in their societies.

    From this point of view, as the anthropologist Margaret Mead put it: We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions. The differences between individuals who are members of different cultures, like the differences between individuals within a culture, are almost entirely to be laid to differences in conditioning, especially during early childhood, and the form of this conditioning is culturally determined Aside from the explanatory problems of biological determinism, it is important to bear in mind the social consequences of biological determinism, as these ideas have been used to support rigid cultural ideas concerning race, gender, disabilities, etc.

    Several hundred individuals were also sterilized in British Columbia between and McLaren, The interesting question that these biological explanations of complex human behaviour raise is: Why are they so popular?

    What is it about our culture that makes the biological explanation of behaviours or experiences like sexual attraction, which we know from personal experience to be extremely complicated and nuanced, so appealing?

    As micro-biological technologies like genetic engineering and neuro-pharmaceuticals advance, the very real prospect of altering the human body at a fundamental level to produce culturally desirable qualities health, ability, intelligence, beauty, etc. If the old eugenics movement promoted selective breeding and forced sterilization in order to improve the biological qualities and, in particular, the racial qualities of whole populations, the new eugenics is focused on calculations of individual risk or individual self-improvement and self-realization.

    In the new eugenics, individuals choose to act upon the genetic information provided by doctors, geneticists, and counsellors to make decisions for their children or themselves Rose, This movement is based both on the commercial aspirations of biotechnology companies and the logic of a new biological determinism or geneticism, which suggests that the qualities of human life are caused by genes Rose, The concept of the gene is a relatively recent addition to the way in which people begin to think about themselves in relationship to their bodies.

    The German historians Barbara Duden and Silja Samerski argue that the gene has become a kind of primordial reference point for the fundamental questions people ask about themselves : Where do I come from; who am I; and what will happen to me in the future?

    The popularization of the idea of the gene entails the development of a new relationship to the human body, health, and the genetic predispositions to health risks as we age. Inthe movie star Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy, not because she had breast cancer but because doctors estimated she had an 87 percent chance of developing breast cancer due to a mutation in the BRCA1 gene Jolie, On the basis of what might happen to her based on probabilities of risk from genetic models she decided to take drastic measures to avoid the breast cancer that her mother died of.

    Her very public stance on her surgery was to raise public awareness of the genetic risks of cancers that run in families and to normalize a medical procedure that many would be hesitant to take. At the same time she further implanted a notion of the gene as a site of invisible risk in peoples lives, encouraging more people to think about themselves in terms of their hidden dispositions to genetically programmed diseases. Some of these misconceptions are funny — Duden and Samerski cite a hairdresser they interviewed as saying that her nail biting habit was part of the nature she was born with — but some of them have serious consequences that can lead to the impossible decisions some individuals, including couples who are having a child, are forced to make.

    The actual causal mechanism for that particular individual is unknown i. In this sense, the gene defines a set of cultural parameters by which people in the age of genetics make sense of themselves in relationship to their bodies. Like biological determinism in general, the gene introduces a kind of fatalism into the understanding of human life and human possibility. Cultural Universals Often, a comparison of one culture to another will reveal obvious differences.

    But all cultures share common elements. Cultural universals are patterns or traits that are globally common to all societies. One example of a cultural universal is the family unit: Every human society recognizes a family structure that regulates sexual reproduction and the care of children.

    Even so, how that family unit is defined and how it functions vary. In many Asian cultures, for example, family members from all generations commonly live together in one household. In Canada, by contrast, individuals are expected to leave home and live independently for a period before forming a family unit consisting of parents and their offspring. Anthropologist George Murdock first recognized the existence of cultural universals while studying systems of kinship around the world.

    Murdock found that cultural universals often revolve around basic human survival, such as finding food, clothing, and shelter, or around shared human experiences, such as birth and death, or illness and healing. Through his research, Murdock identified other universals including language, the concept of personal names, and, interestingly, jokes.

    If everyone hates it, why is OOP still so widely spread?

    Humour seems to be a universal way to release tensions and create a sense of unity among people Murdock, Sociologists consider humour necessary to human interaction because it helps individuals navigate otherwise tense situations.

    The movie opens with the hero sitting on a park bench with a grim expression on her face. Cue the music. The first slow and mournful notes are played in a minor key.

    As the melody continues, the hero turns her head and sees a man walking toward her. The music slowly gets louder, and the dissonance of the chords sends a prickle of fear running down your spine.

    You sense that she is in danger. Now imagine that you are watching the same movie, but with a different soundtrack. As the scene opens, the music is soft and soothing with a hint of sadness. You see the hero sitting on the park bench and sense her loneliness. Suddenly, the music swells. The woman looks up and sees a man walking toward her. The music grows fuller, and the pace picks up. You feel your heart rise in your chest.

    This is a happy moment. Music has the ability to evoke emotional responses. In television shows, movies, and even commercials, music elicits laughter, sadness, or fear. Are these types of musical cues cultural universals? The research team travelled to Cameroon, Africa, and fake instagram dm maker online Mafa tribal members to listen to Western music.

    The tribe, isolated from Western culture, had never been exposed to Western culture and had no context or experience within which to interpret its music. Even so, as the tribal members listened to a Western piano piece, they were able to recognize three basic emotions: happiness, sadness, and fear. Music, it turns out, is a sort of universal language. Researchers also found that music can foster a sense of wholeness within a group.

    In fact, scientists who study the evolution of language have concluded that originally language an established component of group identity and music were one Darwin, Additionally, since music is largely nonverbal, the sounds of music can cross societal boundaries more easily than words.

    Music allows people to make connections where language might be a more difficult barricade. As Fritz and his team found, music and the emotions it conveys can be cultural universals. Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism Despite how much humans have in common, cultural differences are far more prevalent than cultural universals.

    For example, while all cultures have language, analysis of particular language structures and conversational etiquette reveals tremendous differences. In some Middle Eastern cultures, it is common to stand close to others in conversation. North Americans keep more distance, maintaining a large personal space. Even something as simple as eating and drinking varies greatly from culture to culture.

    If your professor comes into an early morning class holding a mug of liquid, what do you assume she is drinking? The way cuisines vary across cultures fascinates many people. Almost everyone is a little bit ethnocentric. Someone from a country where dogs are considered dirty and unhygienic might find it off-putting to see a dog in a French restaurant. But ethnocentrism can lead to disdain or dislike for other cultures, causing misunderstanding and conflict. European colonizers often viewed the people in the lands they colonized as uncultured savages who were in need of European governance, dress, religion, and other cultural practices.

    On the West Coast of Canada, the Aboriginal potlatch gift-giving ceremony was made illegal in because it was thought to prevent Aboriginal peoples from acquiring the proper industriousness and respect for material goods required by civilization.

    A more modern example of cultural imperialism may include the work of international aid agencies who introduce modern technological agricultural methods and plant species from developed countries while overlooking indigenous varieties and agricultural approaches that are better suited to the particular region. Ethnocentrism can be so strong that when confronted with all the differences of a new culture, one may experience disorientation and frustration.

    In sociology, we call this culture shock. A traveller from Toronto might find the nightly silence of rural Alberta unsettling, not peaceful. An exchange student from China might be annoyed by the constant interruptions in class as other students ask questions — a practice that is considered rude in China. But as they experience unanticipated differences from their own culture, their excitement gives way to discomfort and doubts about how to behave appropriately in the new situation.

    Eventually, as people learn more about a culture, they recover from culture shock. Culture shock may appear because people are not always expecting cultural differences. Anthropologist Ken Barger discovered this when conducting participatory observation in an Inuit community in the Canadian Arctic Originally from Indiana, Barger hesitated when invited to join a local snowshoe race.

    Sure enough, he finished last, to his mortification. To the Inuit people winning was enjoyable, but their culture valued survival skills essential to their environment: How hard someone tried could mean the difference between life and death. Over the course of his stay, Barger participated in caribou hunts, learned how to take shelter in winter storms, and sometimes went days with little or no food to share among tribal members.

    Trying hard and working together, two nonmaterial values, were indeed much more important than winning. Cultural relativism requires an open mind and a willingness to consider, and even adapt to, new values and norms. The logic of cultural relativism is at the basis of contemporary policies of multiculturalism.

    However, indiscriminately embracing everything about a new culture is not always possible. Even the most culturally relativist people from egalitarian societies, such as Canada — societies in which women have political rights and control over their own bodies — would question whether the widespread practice of female genital circumcision in countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan should be accepted as a part of a cultural tradition.

    Sociologists attempting to engage in cultural relativism may struggle to reconcile aspects of their own culture with aspects of a culture they are studying. Nor does an appreciation for another culture preclude individuals from studying it with a critical eye. In the case of female genital circumcision, a universal right to life and liberty of the person conflicts with the neutral stance of cultural relativism. It is not necessarily ethnocentric to be critical of practices that violate universal standards of human dignity that are contained in the cultural codes of all cultures, while not necessarily followed in practice.

    Not every practice can be regarded as culturally relative. Cultural traditions are not immune from power imbalances and liberation movements that seek to correct them. Feminist sociology is particularly attuned to the way that most cultures present a male-dominated view of the world as if it were simply the view of the world.

    As a result the perspectives, concerns, and interests of only one sex and class are represented as general. Only one sex and class are directly and actively involved in producing, debating, and developing its ideas, in creating its art, in forming its medical and psychological conceptions, in framing its laws, its political principles, its educational values and objectives. Thus a one-sided standpoint comes to be seen as natural, obvious, and general, and a one-sided set of interests preoccupy intellectual and creative work.

    Smith, In part this is simply a question of the bias of those who have the power to define cultural values, and in part it is the result of a process in which women have been actively excluded from the culture-creating process.

    The overall effect is to establish masculine values and imagery as normal. Multiculturalism tree planted tap titans 2 beginner skill tree Stanley Park to bring B.

    Canada was the first officially declared multicultural society in which, as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared inno culture would take precedence over any other. Multiculturalism refers to both the fact of the existence of a diversity of cultures within one territory and to a way of conceptualizing and managing cultural diversity.

    As a policy, multiculturalism seeks odia banda bia gapa both promote and recognize cultural differences while addressing the inevitability of cultural tensions. However, the focus on multiculturalism and culture per se has not always been so central to Canadian public discourse.

    Multiculturalism represents a relatively recent cultural development. Prior to the end of World War II, Canadian authorities used the concept of biological race to differentiate the various types of immigrants and Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

    After World War II, the category of race was replaced by culture and ethnicity in the public discourse, but the mosaic model was retained.

    Culture came to be understood in terms of the new anthropological definitions of culture as a deep-seated emotional-psychological phenomenon.

    In this conceptualization, to be deprived of culture through coercive assimilation would be a type of cultural genocide. As a result, alternatives to cultural assimilation into the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture were debated, and the Canadian mosaic model for managing a diverse population was redefined as multiculturalism.

    Based on a new appreciation of culture, and with increased immigration from non-European countries, Canadian identity was re-imagined in the s and s as a happy cohabitation of cultures, each of which was encouraged to maintain their cultural distinctiveness. So while the cultural identity of Canadians is diverse, the cultural paradigm in which their coexistence is conceptualized — multiculturalism — has come to be equated with Canadian cultural identity.

    However, these developments have not alleviated the problems of cultural difference with which sociologists are concerned. Multicultural policy has sparked numerous, remarkably contentious issues ranging from whether Sikh RCMP officers can wear turbans to whether Mormon sects can have legal polygamous marriages. This position represented a unique Quebec-based concept of multiculturalism known as interculturalism. Whereas multiculturalism begins with the premise that there is no dominant culture in Canada, interculturalism begins with the premise that in Quebec francophone culture is dominant but also precarious in the North American context.

    It cannot risk further fragmentation. Critics of multiculturalism identify four related problems: Multiculturalism only superficially accepts the equality of all cultures while continuing to limit and prohibit actual equality, participation, and cultural expression.

    Multiculturalism obliges minority individuals to assume the limited cultural identities of their ethnic group of origin, which leads to stereotyping minority groups, ghettoization, and feeling isolated from the national culture. Multiculturalism causes fragmentation and disunity in Canadian society. Minorities do not integrate into existing Canadian society but demand that Canadians adopt or accommodate their way of life, even when they espouse controversial values, laws, and customs like polygamy or sharia law.

    Multiculturalism is based on recognizing group rights which undermines valve csgo servers protections of individual rights.

    On the other hand, proponents of multiculturalism like Will Kymlicka describe the Canadian experience with multiculturalism as a success story. Compared to residents of other Western democracies, Canadians are more likely to say that immigration is beneficial and less likely to have prejudiced views of Muslims.

    Elements of Culture Values and Beliefs The first two elements of culture we will discuss, and perhaps the most crucial, are values and beliefs. Beliefs are the tenets or convictions that people hold to be true. Individuals in a society have specific beliefs, but they also share collective values.

    To illustrate the difference, North Americans commonly believe that anyone who works hard enough will be successful and wealthy. Underlying this belief is the value that wealth is good and desirable. Values help shape a society by suggesting what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly, and what should be sought or avoided.

    Consider the value that North American culture places upon youth. Children represent innocence and purity, while a youthful adult appearance signifies sexuality. Shaped by this value, North Americans spend millions of dollars each year on cosmetic products and surgeries to look young and beautiful.

    Sometimes the values of Canada and the United States are contrasted. Americans are said to have an individualistic culture, meaning people place a high value on individuality and independence.

    In contrast, Canadian culture is said to be more collectivist, meaning the welfare of the group and group relationships are primary values. As we will see below, Seymour Martin Lipset used these contrasts of values to explain why the two societies, which have common roots as British colonies, developed such different political institutions and cultures Lipset, Marital monogamy is valued, but many spouses engage in infidelity.

    Values often suggest how people should behave, but they do not accurately reflect how people do behave. As we saw in Chapter 2, the classical sociologist Harriet Martineau made a basic distinction between what people say they believe and what they actually do, which are often at odds.

    Values portray an ideal culture, the standards society would like to embrace and live up to. But ideal culture differs from real culture, the way society actually is, based on what occurs and exists. In an ideal culture, there would be no traffic accidents, murders, poverty, or racial tension. But in real culture, police officers, lawmakers, educators, and social workers constantly strive to prevent or repair those accidents, crimes, and injustices.

    Teenagers are encouraged to value celibacy. However, the number of unplanned pregnancies among teens reveals that not only is the ideal hard to live up to, but that the value alone is not enough to spare teenagers from the potential consequences of having sex. One way societies strive to put values into action is through rewards, sanctions, and punishments.

    When people observe the norms of society and uphold its values, they are often rewarded. People sanction certain behaviours by giving their support, approval, or permission, or by instilling formal actions of disapproval and non-support.

    Sanctions are a form of social control, a way to encourage conformity to cultural norms. Sometimes people conform to norms in anticipation or expectation of positive sanctions: Good grades, for instance, may mean praise from parents and teachers. A boy who shoves an elderly woman aside to board the bus first may receive frowns or even a scolding from other passengers. A business manager who drives away customers will likely be fired.

    Breaking norms and rejecting values can lead to cultural sanctions such as earning a negative label — lazy, no-good bum — or to legal sanctions such as traffic tickets, fines, or imprisonment. Values are not static; they vary across time and between groups as people evaluate, debate, and change collective societal beliefs. Values also vary from culture to culture. For example, cultures differ in their values about what kinds of physical closeness are appropriate in public.

    It is rare to see two male friends or coworkers holding hands in Canada where that behaviour often symbolizes romantic feelings. But in many nations, masculine physical intimacy is considered natural in public. A simple gesture, such as hand-holding, carries great symbolic differences across cultures.

    In many parts of Africa and the Middle East, it is considered normal for men to hold hands in friendship. How would Canadians react to these two soldiers? These examples describe the visible and invisible rules of conduct through which societies are structured, or what sociologists call norms.

    As opposed to values and beliefs which identify desirable states and convictions about how things are, a norm is a generally accepted way of doing things. Norms define how to behave in accordance with what a society has defined as good, right, and important, and most members of the society adhere to them because their violation invokes some degree of sanction. They define the rules that govern behaviour. Formal norms are established, written rules. They are behaviours worked out and agreed upon in order to suit and serve most people.

    Laws are formal norms, but so are employee manuals, college entrance exam requirements, and no running at swimming pools. Formal norms are the most specific and clearly stated of the various types of norms, and the most strictly enforced. But even formal norms are enforced to varying degrees, reflected in cultural values.

    For example, money is highly valued in North America, so monetary crimes are punished. It is against the law to rob a bank, and banks go to great lengths to prevent such crimes. People safeguard valuable possessions and install anti-theft devices to protect homes and cars. Until recently, a less strictly enforced social norm was driving while intoxicated. While it is against the law to drive drunk, drinking is for the most part an acceptable social behaviour. Though there have been laws in Canada to punish drunk driving sincethere were few systems in place to prevent the crime until quite recently.

    These examples show a range of enforcement in formal norms. There are plenty of formal norms, but the list of informal norms — casual behaviours that are generally and widely conformed to — is longer. People learn informal norms by observation, imitation, and general socialization. Children learn quickly that picking your nose is subject to ridicule when they see someone shamed for it by other children. Although informal norms define personal interactions, they extend into other systems as well.

    Think back to the discussion of fast food restaurants at the beginning of this chapter. In Canada, there are informal norms regarding behaviour at these restaurants. Customers line up to order their food, and leave when they are done. They do not sit down at a table with strangers, sing loudly as they prepare their condiments, or nap in a booth. Most people do not commit even benign breaches of informal norms. Informal norms dictate appropriate behaviours without the need of written rules.

    Like the symbolic interactionists, he believed that members of society together create a social order. He noted, however, that people often draw on inferred knowledge and unspoken agreements to do so. One of his research methods was known as a breaching experiment. His breaching experiments tested sociological concepts of social norms and conformity. In a breaching experiment, the researcher purposely breaks a social norm or behaves in a socially awkward manner.

    The participants are not aware an experiment is in progress. If the breach is successful, however, these innocent bystanders will respond in some way. For example, he had his students go into local shops and begin to barter with the sales clerks for fixed price goods. This breach reveals the unspoken convention in North America that the amount given on the price tag is the price. It also breaks a number of other conventions which seek to make commercial transactions as efficient and impersonal as possible.

    The point of the experiments was not that the experimenter would simply act obnoxiously or weird in public. Rather, the point is to deviate from a specific social norm in a small way, to subtly break some form of social etiquette, and see what happens.

    To conduct his ethnomethodology, Garfinkel deliberately imposed strange behaviours on unknowing people. Then he would observe their responses. He suspected that odd behaviours would shatter conventional expectations, but he was not sure how.

    He set up, for example, a simple game of tic-tac-toe. One player was asked beforehand not to mark Xs and Os in the boxes but on the lines dividing the spaces instead. The other player, in the dark about the study, was flabbergasted and did not know how to continue. The reactions of outrage, anger, puzzlement, or other emotions illustrated the deep level at which unspoken social norms constitute social life.

    There are many rules about speaking with strangers in public. It is okay to tell a woman you like her shoes. It is not okay to ask if you can try them on. It is okay to stand in line behind someone at the ATM. It is not okay to look over their shoulder as they make the transaction. It is okay to sit beside someone on a crowded bus.

    It is weird to sit beside a stranger in a half-empty bus. For some breaches, the researcher directly engages with innocent bystanders. In those cases, the bystanders are pressured to respond, and their discomfort illustrates how much we depend on social norms. These cultural norms play an important role. They let us know how to behave around each other and how to feel comfortable in our community, but they are not necessarily rational.

    Why should we not talk to someone in a public bathroom, or haggle over the price of a good in a store? Breaching experiments uncover and explore the many unwritten social rules we live by. They indicate the degree to which the world we live in is fragile, arbitrary and ritualistic; socially structured by deep, silent, tacit agreements with others of which we are frequently only dimly aware.

    Folkways, Mores, and Taboos Norms may be further classified as mores, folkways, or taboos. Mores pronounced mor—ays are norms that embody the moral views and principles of a group. They are based on social requirements. Violating them can have serious consequences. The strongest mores are legally protected with laws or other formal norms. In Canada, for instance, murder is considered immoral, and it is punishable by law a formal norm.

    More often, mores are judged and guarded by public sentiment an informal norm. People who violate mores are seen as shameful. They can even be shunned or banned from some groups.

    The consequences for violating this norm are severe, and can even result in expulsion. Unlike mores, folkways are norms without any moral underpinnings. They are based on social preferences. Folkways direct appropriate behaviour in the day-to-day practices and expressions of a culture.

    Folkways indicate whether to shake hands or kiss on the cheek when greeting another person. They specify whether to wear a tie and a blazer or a T-shirt and sandals to an event. In Canada, women can smile and say hello to men on the street. In Egypt, it is not acceptable. In northern Europe, it is fine for people to go into a sauna or hot tub naked. Often in North America, it is not.

    An opinion poll that asked Canadian women what they felt would end a relationship after a first date showed that women in British Columbia were pickier than women in the rest of the country Times Colonist, All of these examples illustrate breaking informal rules, which are not serious enough to be called mores, but are serious enough to terminate a relationship before it has begun. Folkways might be small manners, but they are by no means trivial.

    Taboos refer to actions which are strongly forbidden by deeply held sacred or moral beliefs. They are the strongest and most deeply held norms. Their transgression evokes revulsion and severe punishment. There was a clear supernatural context for the prohibition; the act offended the gods or ancestors, and evoked their retribution.

    In secular contexts, taboos refer to powerful moral prohibitions that protect what are regarded as inviolable bonds between people. Incest, pedophilia, and patricide or matricide are taboos. Many mores, folkways, and taboos are taken for granted in everyday life. People need to act without thinking to get seamlessly through daily routines; we can not stop and analyze every action Sumner, These different levels of norm help people negotiate their daily life within a given culture and as such their study is crucial for understanding the distinctions between different cultures.

    Symbols and Language Figure 3. Some road signs are universal. But how would you interpret sign b? Symbols — such as gestures, signs, objects, signals, and words — are tangible marks that stand in for or represent something else. Symbols provide clues to understanding the underlying experiences, statuses, states, and ideas they express.

    They convey recognizable meanings that are shared by societies. In the words of George Herbert Mead: Our symbols are universal. You cannot say anything that is absolutely particular, anything you say that has any meaning at all is universal.


    I do not obsess over the minor parts of my work agree or disagree