Beyond Culture

a

linear

system

that

has

been

with

us

since Socrates.

2. Western man sees his system of logic as synonymous with the truth. For him it

is the only road to reality. Yet Freud educated us to the complexities of the psyche

，

helping his readers to look at dreams as a legitimate mental process that exists quite

apart

from

the

linearity

of

manifest

thought.

But

his

ideas

were

from

the

outset

strenuously resisted, particularly by scientists and engineers, who were still wedded to

a

Newtonian

model.

When

taken

seriously,

Freudian

thinking

shook

the

very

1

foundations of conventional thought. Freud's followers, particularly Fromm and Jung,

undeterred

by

popular

stereotypes

and

the

tremendous

prestige

of

the

physical

sciences, added to his theories and bridged the gap between the linear world of logic

and the integrative world of dreams

.

1

3. Knowing that the interpretation of dreams, myths, and acts is always to some

degree an individual matter,

2

I

cannot

help

asking myself

what

a psychoanalytically

sophisticated

reader

would

add

to

my

own

interpretation

of

a

sequence

of

events

reported in

The New York Times

concerning

a police dog sighted on Ruffle

Bar,

an

uninhabited island near New York.

3

Visible only from a distance, the dog, nicknamed

the King of Ruffle Bar, had sustained itself for an estimated two years, was apparently

in good health, and presumably would have survived in his semi-wild state, barring

accidents,

for

the

rest

of

his

natural

life.

However,

some

well-meaning

soul

heard

about the dog and reported him to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals, thereby setting the bureaucratic wheels in motion. Since the King could

not be approached by people, a baited trap was set. According to the

Times

report.

“...

every

day,

a

police

launch

from

Sheepshead

Bay

takes

off

for

Ruffle

Bar,

the

uninhabited swampy island of the dog. Every day, a police helicopter hovers for a half

hour or more over Ruffle Bar.”

A radio report of the broadcast at the time described

how the helicopter

harassed

the dog in

futile

efforts to “catch” (sic) him (he refused

to enter the trap) or at least to get a better view of him. Police were quoted as saying

the dog “looked in good shape

.

” When questioned, representatives of the ASPCA said:

we will find a

happy

home for it.”

4

(italics added)

4. If this story had been a dream or a myth instead of a news report, there is little

doubt as to its interpretation. Both the latent and the manifest content are quite clear,

possibly explaining why this local news item was given national coverage. I find, as I

go over the story, that free associations come to mind on different levels. The story

epitomizes

the little man against the big bureaucracy. There is also a delusional side

which cannot be overlooked. The ASPCA became obsessed with capturing the dog.

Once

triggered

,

the

ASPCA

involved

the

police

with

a

remorseless

,

mindless

persistence

that

is

too

terrifyingly

characteristic

of

bureaucracies

once

they

are

activated. Interestingly enough, the police, having known about the dog for two years,

had been content to leave him on the island. Emotionally, they sided with the King,

even while carrying out their orders. “Why don't they

leave the dog alone?” said one

policeman. Another observed,

“The dog is as happy as a pig in a puddle.”

5

5.

The

delusional

aspects

have

to

do

with

the

institutionalized

necessity

to

control

is best; never for a moment does he doubt the validity of the bureaucratic solution. It

is also slightly insane, or at least indicative of our incapacity to order priorities with

any

common

sense,

to

spend

thousands

of

dollars

for

helicopters,

gasoline,

and

salaries for the sole purpose of bureaucratic neatness.

6. Even more recently, a

New York Times

news item

6

reported a U. S. Park Police

campaign to stamp out kite flying on the grounds of the Washington Monument. Their

charter to harass the kite fliers lay in an old law written by Congress supposedly to

2

keep the Wright brothers' planes from becoming fouled in kite strings.

7. The psychoanalyst Laing is convinced that the Western world is mad.

7

These

stories of the dog and the kite fliers bolster Laing's view and symbolize man's

plight

as well as any recent events I know.

8

However, it is not man who is crazy so much as

his institutions

9

and those culture patterns that determine his behavior. We in the West

are alienated from ourselves and from nature. We labor under a number of delusions,

one of which is that life makes sense; i.e., that we are sane. We persist in this view

despite

massive

evidence

to

the

contrary.

We

live

fragmented,

compartmentalized

lives in which contradictions are carefully sealed off from each other. We have been

taught

to

think

linearly

rather

than

comprehensively,

10

and

we

do

this

not

through

conscious design or because we are not intelligent or capable, but because of the way

in which deep cultural undercurrents structure life in subtle but highly consistent ways

that

are

not

consciously

formulated.

Like

the

invisible

jet

streams

in

the

skies

that

determine

the

course

of

a

storm,

these

hidden

currents

shape

our

lives;

yet

their

influence

is

only

beginning

to

be

identified.

Given

our

linear,

step- by-step,

compartmentalized way of thinking,

11

fostered by the schools and public media, it is

impossible for our leaders to consider events comprehensively or to weigh priorities

according to a system of common good, all of which can be placed like an unwanted

waif on culture's doorstep. Yet, paradoxically, few anthropologists are in agreement as

to what to include under the general rubric of culture. While it will be denied by some,

much depends on the anthropologist's own culture, which exerts a deep and abiding

influence

not

only

over

how

anthropologists

think

but

over

where

they

draw

the

boundaries

in

such

matters.

Frequently,

the

greater

portion

of

contemporary

culture

will

be

excluded

or

referred

to

as

“mere

convention”.

In

a

practical

sense

the

conventions of the field and what one's peers are studying have more to do with what

anthropologists define as culture than an appraisal of one's data might indicate. Like

everyone

else,

anthropologists

use

models,

and

some

models

are

more

fashionable

than others. Most of them are handed down and modified periodically.

8. The reader may well ask, “What is a model?” or “What kind of models are you

talking

about?”

While

models

and

how

man

uses

them

are

just

beginning

to

be

understood,

one

thing

is

certain:

many

different

models

exist.

Mechanical

models,

such

as

scale

models

of

airplanes

flown

in

wind

tunnels,

show

how

machines

and

processes work. Models for making molds can reproduce everything from machines

to

copies

of

works

of

art.

Life

models

help

the

artist

fill

in

gaps

in

a

faulty

visual

memory. Parents and teachers may be models for the young.

9. Scientists use theoretical models, often mathematical in nature. These are used

to symbolically express certain qualities, quantities, and relationships encountered in

life.

Econometricians,

for

example,

use

these

models

to

investigate

how

the

more

measurable aspects of the economic system operate.

10. Anthropologists use predominantly non-mathematical theoretical models that

are rooted in culture. Since culture is itself a series of situational models for behavior

and thought, the models anthropologists use are frequently highly abstract versions of

parts of models that make up the entire culture (kinship systems, for example).

11. Man is the model-making organism

par excellence

. His earliest intellectual

3

endeavors

resulted

in

monuments

that

rays

mystified

and

puzzled

twentieth-century

man

until

they

were

figured

out.

Stonehenge,

for

example,

is

a

model

of

the

solar

system

that

enabled

the

early

inhabitants

of

the

Salisbury

Plain

to

make

accurate

observations

of

celestial

events

and

to

keep

track

of

the

seasons,

order

their

ceremonial life, and even predict eclipses at a time when no one would have thought

such

refined

calculations

and

observations

were

possible.

(fifteen

hundred

to

two

thousand years B. C! ).

12.

Grammars

and

writing

systems

are

models

of

language.

Any

school

child

who has struggled to make sense of what he is taught knows that some fit reasonably

well, others don't. Myths, philosophical systems, and science represent different types

of

models

of

what

the

social

scientists

call

cognitive

systems.

The

purpose

of

the

model is to enable the user to do a better job in handling the enormous complexity of

life.

By using models, we see and test how things work and can even predict how

things will go in the future. The effectiveness of a model can be judged by how well it

works, as well as how consistent it is as a mechanical or philosophical system. People

are

very

closely

identified

with

their

models,

since

they

also

form

the

basis

for

behavior. Men have fought and died in the name of different models of nature.

13.

All

theoretical

models

are

incomplete.

By

definition,

they

are

abstractions

and

therefore

leave

things

out.

What

they

leave

out

is

as

important

as,

if

not

more

important than, what they do not, because it is what is left out that gives structure and

form

to

the

system.

Models

have

a

half

life-some

are

ephemeral

,

others

last

for

centuries. There are highly explicit models, while others are so much a part of life as

to be unavailable for analysis except under very special circumstances.

14.

In

constructing

their

models

of

culture,

most

anthropologists

take

into

account

that

there

are

different

levels

of

behavior:

overt

and

covert,

implicit

and

explicit, things you talk about and things you do not. Also, that there is such a thing as

the

unconscious,

although

few

are

in

agreement

as

to

the

degree

to

which

the

unconscious

is

influenced

by

culture.

The

psychologist

Jung,

for

example,

hypothecated a

“collective”

unconscious that was shared by all mankind (a concept

many

anthropologists

might

have

trouble

accepting).

Paradoxically,

studying

the

models that men create to explain nature tells you more about the men than about the

part of nature being studied. In the West, people are more concerned with the content

or meaning of the model

than they are with

how it is

put

together, is

organized, or

performs, and the purpose it is supposed to fulfill.

15. Anthropologists have studied only those things people could or would talk to

them about, with the result that many of the important things

—

culture patterns that

make

life

meaningful

and

really

differentiate

one

group

from

another

—

have

gone

unnoticed

or

been

unreported

and

brushed

aside

as

trivial.

If

one

were

to

use

a

linguistic analogy, it would be as though there were data on the vocabulary of culture

but very little on either the syntactic (grammar) or phonemic systems (alphabets are

based on a phonemic analysis). It is not enough to say that the French believe this and

the

Spanish

believe

that.

Beliefs

can

change.

Beneath

the

clearly

perceived,

highly

explicit surface culture, there lies a whole other world, which when understood will

ultimately

radically

change

our

view

of

human

nature.

Writing

forty

years

ago,

the

4

linguist Sapir started the ball rolling by demonstrating that in language (an important

part

of

culture)

man

created

an

instrument

that

is

quite

different

from

what

is

commonly supposed. He states:

16. The relation between language and experience is often misunderstood

…

［

i t

］

actually defines experience for us by reason of its formal completeness and because of

our unconscious projection of its implicit expectations into

the field of experience…

.

［

L

］

anguage is much like a mathematical system, which…becomes elaborated into

a

self-contained

conceptual

system

which

previsages

all

possible

experience

in

accordance with

certain

accepted formal limitations.... [C]ategories such as number,

gender,

case,

tense,

mode,

voice,

“aspect”

and

a

host

of

others ...

are

not

so

much

discover

ed in experience as imposed open it …. (italics added)

12

17. Sapir’s work, which predates McLuhan by thirty

-five years, not only makes a

stronger, more detailed case than McLuhan that

be

extended

to

include

other

cultural

systems

as

well.

In

the

process

of

evolving

culture, the human species did much more than was at first supposed.

18.

The

usefulness

of

Sapir's

model

was

demonstrated

in

a

practical

way

by

Kluckhohn and Leighton in their pioneering book The Navajo,

13

which illustrates the

difficulties the verb-oriented Navajo children experienced when they attended white

schools

and

were

confronted

by

English

—

a

loosely

structured,

adjective

language.

Kluckhohn

and

Leighton's

basic

point,

however,

was

not

only

that

differences

in

emphasis on adjectival and verbal forms caused difficulty in school, but that the total

orientation of the two languages was different, forcing the two groups to attend and

fail to attend entirely different things in nature. Having lived and dealt with Navajos

for a number of years, I have no doubt not only that they think very differently from

the white man, but that much of this difference is at least initially traceable to their

language. Working

with

other cultural

systems,

I have found

evidence that

it is

not

just

in

language

that

one

finds

such

constraints,

but

elsewhere

as

well,

provided

of

course that one is fortunate enough to have studied cultures sufficiently different from

one's own to bring its latent structures into focus.

19. In considering the data presented in this book, it is important for the reader to

come to grips with his own model of culture in its manifest as well as its latent forms,

because my purpose is to raise some of the latent to conscious awareness and to give

it form

so

that it

can be dealt with.

Technically, the model of culture on which my

work is based is more inclusive than those of some of my colleagues. My emphasis is

on

the

nonverbal,

unstated

realm

of

culture.

While

I

do

not

exclude

philosophical

systems,

religion,

social

organization,

language,

moral

values,

art,

and

material

culture, I feel it is more important to look at the way things are actually put together

than at theories.

20. Nevertheless, and in spite of many differences in detail, anthropologists do

agree on three characteristics of culture: it is not innate, but learned; the various facets

of

culture

are

interrelated

—

you

touch

a

culture

in

one

place

and

everything

else

is

affected; it is shared and in effect defines the boundaries of different groups.

21.

Culture

is

man's

medium;

there

is

not

one

aspect

of

human

life

that

is

not

touched

and

altered

by

culture.

This

means

personality,

how

people

express

5