Culture and Structure vs. Agency

Carmel brings up an interesting point in thinking about how culture is situated in the argument for structure or agency. Geertz does mention that there is the endless debate of whether culture is "objective" or "subjective" (300). We can think about culture being "objective" in relation to structure in that people participate and are subject to a culture. For example, there are cultures that are attached to ethnicities that one is born into. My Chinese heritage influences aspects of my life such as what I eat, my mannerisms, and celebrated holidays to name a few. This culture is difficult to detatch one's self from though not entirely impossible. Considering agency then we can say that people have the choice whether or not to participate in some cultures. For example people may recognize consummer culture and choose not to participate or not identify with pop culture. Pop culture and consummer culture are largely present in a place like Vancouver however this culture has room for agency.

I agree with what you have said and I think that Geertz's point about ethnography applies to culture being objective or subjectve. He talks about how it is necessary to look at what the practitioners are doing, something that is essential to understanding both the objective and subjective experience. A person's culture may be the ethnicity they are born into or come from the society they live in, but either way, it is crucial to look at a person in order to comprehend how they view this culture, not just looking at the big picture. These subjective experiences are what create "thick descriptions" and allow for new knowledge.

I agree that Geertz points to the individual to allow for "thick descriptions", but I think that part of this stems from the reality that actions can appear the same superficially while in reality being enacted for very different reasons. If we return to the example of cultural heritage, one may participate in enacting their heritage for varying reasons that are not immediately apparent from a "thin description". A second generation immigrant may eat in a culturally specific manner while with their parents, and may appear indistinguishable from them in this context, but could be engaging in the mannerisms for different reasons than their parents themselves are. For example, the parent may view their food culture as an integral part of their identity, while the child may engage in such practices primarily to please their parents. In this way, a "thin description" of what both parent and child are doing misses the "thick description" of the differing meanings that parent and child ascribe to their actions.

I can agree with Madeleine on that because further talking about food culture and how it is a prominent part of displaying our identity but it can also be identified with the thick description of culture. There are instances for example in Chinese culture where the elders would prefer to have dimsum (usually served during breakfast or lunch) and the children (being me and my cousins) would have to conform to having it even if we don't necessarily like it just to please those that are older than us. Especially with my grandparents its more of a tradition and a cultural way of spending time together by consuming this instead of any other cuisine. Having dimsum with those older than you displays other meanings besides conforming to only consuming it because it may be what our parents tell us to do but it brings together meaning of connectedness, respect and the display of continuing on the chinese culture to further generations.

Your dimsum example made me think back to Merton's concept of latent function. Having dimsum as a tradition that initially embedded in the food culture. After reading your example, I realize that having dimsum in the Chinese culture, it also a form that gathers families together, and we can refer to Merton's concept of latent function.

I think this provides such an interesting avenue for looking at tradition (tying it back to Merton even), how it is understood, how it is celebrated, how it changes not only from person to person, but from generation to generation. The changing interpretations of cultural events, and the dismissal or heaving altering of since-steady traditions can lead to a lot of inter-generational friction à la "back in my day we used to play outside...". As a Gen X/millennial, it is honestly soooo satisfying to see archives of evidence shared on facebook of people saying "back in my day" (or some limited variant of this) for such a long time. It makes sense that this is the case, because various traditions that were so crucial and formative for one generation can be so tedious and ancient for the next, and despite this being the nature of passing time, it can be so wrenching when it feels as though such "necessary" rules, norms, and traditions are being broken. I think this is why people become "more conservative as they get older", not necessarily because of any kind of inherent wisdom gained through age (although older folks do have wise insights, at times), because even if they aren't more politically or socially progressive, there will arguably still be many things that older folks see as important to the well-running of a society, because for them it seemed to be (and often was so important), but now it simply isn't.

Hi Nicole, I think it's great that you bring up that Geertz identifies the cultural struggle between objective and subjective. I found this to be particularly interesting if you look at the language that Mead uses to refer to the I self & the Me Self! When we consider how the two theorists converse with each other, we begin to notice where these similarities lie. For example, does Mead use the generalized other as a way of determining the self as the center?

Hi Nicole,

To build on that, I think it's also important (but not covered by the theory) that the principles extend to subcultures! For instance, participation in subcultures such as being a self-proclaimed hipster, an IG foodie, or even subcultures like the 'brony' documentary that we watched in class; all of these similarly inform an individual's understanding of the world, and cause them to act in specific ways that are contrary to the norm, or are not universal. Relative to your example, although typically Chinese people share many traits, you could contrast between Chinese-Born-Canadians, those who immigrated at a young age, those whose families are from Hong Kong versus Taiwan, etc. and still be able to recognize similarities that inform their understanding of the world and unique actions, but also mannerisms that are particular to each subculture as well, each carrying their own meaning.

I agree with you Nicole especially with the growth of technology it really lets people identify these different sub cultures. People have many options for which cultures they want to be apart of and for many people they choose where they want to live based more on the culture they want to be apart of instead of what is convenient or more ideal. There are some cultures that you are born into or raised in but for many sub cultures such as groups online or in person people grow to pick which ones they want to be apart of.

I would also like to add to Carmel's point about individuals having agency over culture. To Geertz, culture is embedded in a person's actions making it concrete and as he said 'public', rather than culture being an abstract concept. Culture is understood through actions and individual perceptions of those actions. Geertz's account of ethnography describes thick description which entails the symbols and meanings of a particular culture while thin description merely considers the facts and ignores interpretations of actions, and this can be recognized with reference to culture as being either subjective or objective. Taking a subjective stance helps one understand the context and meaning of certain actions, thus making one capable of seeing symbols and their consequences in particular cultures. Thick description reveals consumption and transmission of norms and thus what they mean for people in a particular context.