Definitions such as ‘society is a collection of people living

in the same area over time’ and ‘culture is the way of life

of a people’ are constructed with an image of knowledge

in mind where facts and essential characteristics are

stated as if they summed up the story in its entirety. As

we shall see, unpicking these definitions will lead us into

less cut-and-dried understandings of society and culture.

Statics Versus Dynamics: The Problem

of Change The social world is characterised by constant change.

So too is the natural world; for example, rivers, earth

movements, the subatomic world, diseases, viruses and so

on present a dynamic, highly interactive and constantly

changing milieu. Yet knowledge in the natural sciences

is often portrayed as if only predictable patterns and

processes take place. Thus, the major aspects of life

in the social and natural worlds – dynamism, change,

interaction – tend to be wiped out by the bias that has

operated in how we treat knowledge. Let us look again

at these two definitions:

■ society – a collection of people living in the same area

over time;

■ culture – the ways of life of a people.

We do not see anything here that is dynamic and

changeful (having an innate tendency to change).

Neither do these definitions seem to be problematic

or unduly complex. What is only inferred, and never

made explicit, is that for a society to exist there must be

arrangements, interactions and relationships that make

social life possible. Describe any features of ‘society’ which can be

regarded as being dynamic.

The idea of a definition is not itself being questioned

here. Definitions are useful, particularly in the natural

sciences where they carry important information in a

nutshell. However, in the social sciences definitions tend

to reduce important information to static relationships

that do not give a true picture of the social world. On

the other hand, if a comprehensive definition were to

be attempted it would be much too long; it would no

longer constitute a definition but become an extended

explanation. We need to be aware that when we use

definitions of social phenomena they are of limited value

as explanations. It may not be too far-fetched to claim

that many of the intentions to improve society expressed

by governments, international bodies, churches and

other organisations and individuals suffer from an overly

static understanding of social life.

Society: Multiple Meanings The strategy we will use here is to come to an

understanding of what ‘society’ is not through a

definition, but by mapping out all its various meanings

(see Fig. 3.1). To do this we will:

a. examine popular ways of using the term;

b. analyse how it is understood in different disciplines of

knowledge. We may notice, for example, that while a definition

such as ‘society is a collection of people living in an area

for a long time’ is accepted, the ways in which people use

the term assume far deeper meanings. By surveying the

ways in which the term is used we may get closer to a

more meaningful interpretation. Let us look at other ways in which the term
is used and see

if we can discern themes similar to those you identified in

Activity 3.1, or even different understandings. Especially

common today is the term information society, describing

a society where maximum use is made of information

and communications technologies (ICTs). Groups in

society employ the new technologies to lead lives of

utmost efficiency and enjoyment. ICTs imbue all aspects

of life: businesses are networked into large databases,

financial transactions are flexible and can take place in

multiple locations, shopping can be done on the Internet,

teletext messages offer just one of many alternatives to

quick communications, and computers are found if not

in every home, certainly in companies and associations

of all kinds. The term ‘information society’ is thus saying

that the ways in which information is managed, stored

and communicated in these times deeply influence and

alter relationships among groups of people and permeate

the whole society, making it palpably different from, say,

ten years ago. We can easily understand this if we focus on groups

of people such as the elderly, the poor, technophobes and

citizens of countries with a low per capita income, who

have all somehow been left out of the computer age.

They suffer all kinds of disadvantages in trying to live

lives to the best of their ability. They find that they do

not have the requisite skills for work, for study and even

for conducting business or simple transactions in the

public domain. Operating in the everyday environments

in which they are required to remember PINs, interpret

computerised transactions and communicate via

voicemail, email, cellular telephones and text messaging,

and so on, leaves them with a diminished confidence in themselves as

effectively functioning adults. Such groups

of people, some of whom may actually live in high-tech

information societies and some in developing societies,

experience social life differently from others who are

literate in computer and information technologies. The

digital divide is a term that calls attention to the different

relationships that the haves (the computer savvy) and the

have-nots (those who do not know how to make use of

the technologies or have little access to them) experience

in society. Contrary to what some people think, it is not

a continuum but a gap that is widening.

Today the rhetoric on human development emphasises

the need for another kind of society, a learning society.

Reform efforts visualise the whole society as one that

actively promotes and enhances learning. This is seen as

necessary in today’s world of rapid and unprecedented

change, where learning has to be continuous. Those who

advocate the concept of a learning society see that even

normal participation in church, work and leisure should

involve learning. It should be among the principles that

characterise how the media operate, as well as the health

sector and government departments. Everyone should see

themselves as a learner. A focus on continuous learning

in society has the potential to deepen the knowledge and

understanding we have of each other and help us to share

that knowledge in more meaningful ways that help to

improve our relationships.

What is the understanding of society in the term

‘learning society’? Like the ‘information society’, it refers

to the quality of the relationships that structure

interaction in a group of people living together. There is

also a stress on something of value that you may also have

discovered when you attempted to describe civil society

(see Activity 3.1), where society is seen to be working

towards the attainment of some ideal. The idea of a civil

society is one with a certain vision of society where the

citizenry operates and benefits from lawful and just

relationships. The ‘learning society’ is similar. It is a way

of visualising society where, through an emphasis on

learning, a more humane society results. As a relatively

new idea about how our society should be organised, it is

an ideal which governments, non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) and international organisations

are promoting in education, the economy, the public

service, health, and so on.

Identify any reforms or measures already in place (or

being considered) in your society which may be helpful

in enhancing its potential as a ‘learning society’.

In mapping out the various ways in which the term

‘society’ is used in everyday life, we have seen that they

extend far beyond ‘a group of people living together in

a place over a long period of time’. The most important

aspects seem to have been left out of such a definition. In

social life there are a variety of perspectives depending on

the group to which one belongs or one’s social location.

Thus, one term can have multiple and conflicting meanings.

For example, ‘society’ has all of the following meanings:

■ a group of people living together in a defined

territorial space, experiencing continuity over a long

period of time;

■ a group which shares a common purpose that

structures their relationships and interactions;

■ the experience of citizenship within a space;

■ an ideal which a group of people is striving to achieve.

All these meanings are in popular use, and although

no distinction is made when we are using the term in the

various senses, people usually know how to interpret it.

For example, they know when the term is being used to

indicate the social institutions of the land, as in ‘Society

today is in need of healing’, or when it is used in a narrow

and circumscribed sense of a common purpose as in ‘The

Audubon Society will hold its annual general meeting on

…’. It is important to remember that ‘society’ will

continue to be a contested concept and any definition

chosen is merely that, a choice. In other words, there is

no one definition of the concept ‘society’. Nor is there a

law written anywhere that says definitively what a society

is. People living in groups from time immemorial have

tried to construct their day-to-day living on an image of

what their society should be like. The meanings of society

listed above are social constructions of the term.

1. Using your country as an example, reflect on the

nature of the digital divide. Which groups are

enabled, and which groups disadvantaged, by the

dominance of ICTs in society?

2. On an international level, identify countries on

either side of the digital divide. Suggest reasons

why the gap may be widening rather than closing.

ACTIVITY 3.2

The term non-governmental organisation, or NGO, is used

for any non-profit group organised on a local, national or

international level.

The term social construction refers to ways people have of

giving meaning to something and then coming to believe

in [Link] us consider each of these definitions in turn.

1. A group of people living together in a defined territorial space,

experiencing continuity over a long period of time. There are

those of us who conjure up an image of space and place

where the group is ‘contained’, and such a construction

of society has a strong historical, political, geographical

and ecological perspective. (This view ignores the idea

that members of a society – for example, Caribbean

society – can live in areas that are far removed from

the Caribbean, as in the diaspora.)

2. A group which shares a common purpose that structures their

relationships and interactions. This definition stresses the

common bonds – ‘values’ – that group members share,

which must necessarily structure their interaction and

relationships. The social construction popular here is

in terms of consensus, harmony and order that ought

to prevail in society. It portrays an image of society

as stable and peaceful, but in some plural societies

there are deep-seated tensions within the society,

often because two or more groups have conflicting

‘common purposes’.

3. The experience of citizenship within a space. This focuses on

the political aspect of society, where those who belong

to the group have formal membership involving laws,

sanctions and official marks of ‘belonging’. It sounds

static, but citizenship can be dynamic too, as the

citizen body increases and decreases demographically.

However, the definition again ignores that some

citizens do not live in the ‘shared space’ but have

migrated to find work or to study while retaining

their citizenship in the country where they were

born. Others form part of the society even though

their actual political citizenship is elsewhere.

4. An ideal which a group of people is striving to achieve. This

definition sees society as actually having a life of its

own and evolving towards some ideal; it is always

becoming and we cannot say that we have achieved it as

yet. Visions of civil society and the learning society fit

into this conception of what the term ‘society’ means.

All the above are social constructions about what a

society is, and people can hold different and conflicting

images of society quite comfortably. Nevertheless, not all

these images are held with the same intensity. There tends to

be a dominant image that is shared, and apparently it is the

least complex version that often has widespread acceptance.

Disciplinary perspectives

Let us now move from popular understandings of society

and focus on how various disciplines, particularly the

social science disciplines, view society. A ‘discipline’

is an organised body of knowledge such as biology or

economics. In the western traditions of Europe and

North America knowledge is classified into the physical

or natural sciences, the social sciences, and the arts and

humanities. There are certain subdivisions and overlaps

but generally the three-way classification is accepted by

scholars and by academic and professional communities

as representing the broad divisions of knowledge.

All social science disciplines study society, emphasising

different aspects. Thus, a body of perspectives has grown

up among students and scholars that emphasise certain

views of society according to their subject speciality.

Examining some of the ways in which society is perceived

in the different social science disciplines deepens our

understanding of the diversity and divergence of opinions

associated with it. One meaning that we are interested in

clarifying is its perceived relationship with ‘culture’.

Geography

Geographical ideas form one of the many elements

underlying the everyday use of the term ‘Caribbean

society’. Geography assumes that the groups of people

who live in a region develop ways of interacting that

are significantly influenced by the place or space in

which they live. Caribbean society will thus differ from

American society and from social life in the Amazon. This

notion of society also has an ecological perspective where

people develop ways of adapting to their environmental

conditions as well as adapting the environment using

their own unique knowledge and expertise. For

example, the Dutch were able to bring their skills of land

reclamation to the low-lying Guiana coastlands to create

the conditions necessary for society to develop.

Given the strong linkage between people adapting

their ways of life in a specific location and the concept

of society, a social construction of society has evolved in

geography that blurs the boundaries between ‘Caribbean

society’ and ‘Caribbean culture’. Geographers focus

on different aspects of the subject as wide-ranging as

physical geography, political or economic geography and

social geography, always with the emphasis, however, on

particular spaces.

History

History locates societies in time. For example, Roman

society flourished at a certain time and no longer exists;

the relationships that structured that society are long

gone. Historians think of a society as located in time

and belonging to a certain period. They study how the

society changes over time. Historians thus have a notion

of society as a set of dynamic relationships between and

within different groups. When historians speak of a society they tend to

stress

the social formation – the structure of groups and their

relationships. They do not necessarily need to separate

out culture for their purposes – though they do study

culture in terms of the expressive arts in different

periods – and thus their discussions about society are

inclusive of culture. However, the discipline is broken

down into a number of subdisciplines focusing on in-

depth investigation of political developments, social and

economic structures and specifically cultural phenomena,

reflected in the designations political history, social history,

economic history, history of art, and so on. Many historians

also specialise in a particular period or era, or take up

a recognised slant, for example Marxist historians, who

follow Marx’s analysis of society and its progression

from the feudal arrangements associated with medieval

peasant societies to the capitalist exploitation of workers,

to the eventual victory of revolutionary socialism.

If we agree that Roman ‘society’ no longer exists

as it did during the Roman Empire, then how do

we explain the persistence of Roman ‘culture’ to

the present day? Some examples of Roman cultural

forms are still evident in language (Latin), drama,

law, government and engineering, among others.

Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of the societies that human

beings have formed from earliest times to now. Of primary

interest is the culture of these societies. An anthropological

study of Caribbean society today may emphasise

traditional societies such as that of the Amerindians or

small communities such as the Rastafarians or the Chinese

community in Jamaica. Anthropologists thus study

societies by focusing on the culture of those societies,

making virtually no distinction between the two.

Political science

Political science studies politics, government, political

systems and power relationships among the interest groups

in society. The boundaries of the state are traditionally

seen as the limit of the society. Society thus has a

geographical basis and is understood as a ‘container’ in

which power relationships occur. Definitions which say

that society is a ‘defined territorial space’ or ‘citizenship

within a space’ illustrate a political science conception of

the term ‘society’.

Compared to the other social science disciplines

discussed above, there seems to be less of a tendency

to bring society and culture together as one indivisible

whole. On the other hand, society seems to be fused or

equated with the state.

Sociology

Sociology is defined as the study of society and so it

attempts to distinguish between ‘society’ and ‘culture’

and to specify the relations between the two. The

dominant way of studying society is through an

understanding of its social structure, including social

organisations and institutions. Examples of social

institutions are religion, the economy, politics, education

and health. Examples of social organisations are churches,

the labour market, political parties, and so on, based on

the different social institutions. Patterns of behaviour

(which have cultural overtones) describe how members

with different roles interact with each other. Thus, the

meaning of society in sociology is bound up with social

structure and social organisation. There are a number of

different approaches within sociology, reflecting the

history and development of the discipline. Functionalism

and Marxism are two of the strongest of these (Box 3.1).

Explain how social institutions and social

organisations help to explain the concept of

‘society’.

Social science disciplines study the same phenomenon

– ‘society’ – but differently, as no one discipline can

seemingly capture all its various facets. However, it

is often the case that a social scientist becomes deeply

socialised into the discipline in which he or she has

specialised, and ignores or plays down the understanding

of society put forward by the other disciplines. For

example, the political scientist emphasises the impact of a

political system on society, while a Marxist sociologist or

historian focuses on the economic system in explaining

society. We need to look out for this tendency to reduce

and simplify what ‘society’ means to the specific aspects

studied by a particular discipline (Box 3.2). Also, the

difficulty of extricating culture from understandings

about society has tended to mean that most social science

disciplines conflate the two terms. Activity 3.3 on page

66 considers ten different definitions of society.

For our purposes, what is especially important is

what the disciplines emphasise in their various explicit

Functionalist sociologists tend to

view social structure as working in

such a way as to ensure peace and

stability. The structures that organise

relationships and interactions make

certain that the collective will of

members is satisfied. Undesirable

behaviours are discouraged through

social structures such as laws, norms,

rules, roles, values and sanctions.

For example, churchgoing is a

strong Caribbean norm encouraging

conformist behaviours. The processes

of socialisation and education are the

major ways through which respect for

these laws and norms is taught. Marxist sociologists also understand

society in terms of its social structure

but do not hold the harmonious view

described above. They say that the

structures in capitalist societies are

enabling for the wealthy and coercive

for poorer groups. This means that

since the economic structure of the

society dominates interaction and

relationships, the interests of the

elites are always taken care of. Gross

inequalities occur in the society and

the poor do not have the power

to change societal arrangements.

According to Marxists, the processes

of socialisation and education

support these inequalities. Thus, even

within sociology, there are different

perspectives on society.

It is ironic (and instructive) that in promoting a

particular view of society (and excluding others),

scholars in the disciplines portray themselves

as a society. The National Geographic Society,

the Association of Caribbean Historians or the

American Psychological Society provide examples

of how disciplines, through their journals, subject

associations, conferences and departments attempt

to map out their territory of the study of society

and establish boundaries with other social science

disciplines. In so doing they create a ‘society’ of

scholars and students (an academic community).

Commitment to a set of cherished norms and values

is fostered through ongoing efforts at refining

and outlining their shared interests – a distinctive

body of language and concepts, accepted ways of

studying, researching and reporting, and strong

opinions about what is considered valid knowledge.

In these ways a community of discourse (a society)

is built up around a particular discipline based

on consensus. This process is continuous as new

scholars are always being inducted by the old

guard into the concepts and preferred ways of

understanding the term ‘society’ in a particular

discipline. Rivalries tend to develop between the

different societies representing each discipline,

competing for universal recognition that each one

is better than the other in the kinds of authentic

and unique insights about society that they can

generate. definitions of society. What is emphasised and what is

downplayed refer yet again to our growing understanding

that people speak about things from their own experience

and their own social location, and often ignore the

experiences of others. For us, their different definitions

serve to question each other and provide a more

comprehensive understanding of what ‘society’ means. Culture: Multiple

Meanings

We can also explore the multiple meanings of the

term culture through its different definitions. Some

emphasise the importance of different behaviours, such

as ‘learned behaviour common to all human beings’,

‘norms and values providing a guide to behaviour’, or

‘institutions which prescribe behaviour’. Others look

at the importance of traditions and customs. We begin

our study of culture by working through the variety

of perspectives that are in popular use, together with a

brief glance at those found in the more formal world of

academic disciplines.

Popular ways of portraying ‘culture’

Culture as ‘ways of life’

Perhaps the best-known definition of culture is the one

that describes it as the ways of life of a people. People tend

to speak in terms of labels, definitions and shorthand ways

of describing something, especially if the phenomenon

is complex. Ways of worshipping, celebrating, voting,

earning a living and interacting with the different social

groups in the country will qualify as the culture of those

people in that country. This is an ‘omnibus’ version of

the concept, carrying the understanding that all patterns

and processes in which a people engage are eligible to

be described as its culture. While this is not wrong, it

reduces culture to a set of patterns of behaviour, and this

is quite inadequate if we want a deeper understanding.

Culture as products

Certain terms in everyday use tend to equate culture with

cultural products. ‘Popular culture’, ‘high culture’ or ‘elite

culture’, ‘mass culture’ and ‘global culture’ are examples.

■ Popular culture refers to the music, visual and

performing arts, literature, festivals, cuisine, poetry

and artistic and designer creations that are promoted

mainly through the efforts of the mass media, and even

the foreign mass media. Here we see one understanding

of culture that tends to get overlooked – that the

culture of a people is not necessarily only about things

indigenous to them. The term ‘mass culture’ refers

to the lifestyles and values promoted through the

mass media. And in this era of globalisation, where

through ICTs we are all becoming increasingly like

each other, there is talk of a ‘global culture’.

■ High culture is an elitist understanding of culture

and was first put forward by Matthew Arnold in the

nineteenth century. It refers to values that promote

the best thoughts and ideas that human beings have

developed and perfected, for beauty, intelligence and

truth. Examples are classical ballet, classical (western)

music, literature and literary drama, sculpture and

the various schools of painting. Human society,

on this view, can be transformed by contact with

these products of high culture. It is undoubtedly an

ethnocentric concept, as it seems to value only the

cultural products of western society – primarily the

legacies of Greece and Rome, but also of Europe

and the European influence in North America. This

understanding still persists in statements like ‘he is

highly cultured’, and refers to certain ‘refined’ tastes

or aesthetic accomplishments. Culture as ordinary

In 1958 Raymond Williams put forward the view that

culture is ordinary. He was opposing both ‘the ways

of life’ and the ‘cultural products’ view of culture by

stressing its symbolic nature. In his view what should be

emphasised is the process by which common meanings

come to be accepted, debated and modified by people in a

society. People develop or do not develop a commitment

to the values and norms of their society through contact

with them and the varied experiences each has had with

them. Thus, culture is ordinary because it develops in

every individual according to his or her experiences. In

addition, it is not something that has a tangible existence.

Culture is the meanings people have for something, and

those meanings are represented in ordinary life through

behaviours, acts, rituals, norms, and so on. In this view,

culture is not just what is manifest but also the deep

personal meanings that ordinary people develop and

externalise in different ways. One example of this in

‘ordinary’ life in the Caribbean is the tendency to crowd

around rather than form orderly lines for service. The

value of ‘first come, first served’ is not held in as high

regard as the ability to flout rules in getting ahead. Culture as learned

behaviour

This is another very popular way of defining culture –

that culture is learned and shared. It improves on the

equally popular notion of ‘ways of life of a people’ by

focusing not on the specific patterns of behaviour but

on how people come to develop those behaviours in the

first place. It builds on Williams’s ideas by deepening an

understanding of the symbolic.

In this view, people who live together develop

symbols that each member has to learn and these symbols

represent significant shared meanings for something.

Language, gestures, habits, religion, marriage and

aspirations act as symbols for a set of shared meanings and

values, which for people in that society represents their

culture. Language and gestures are easy to understand. A

word in any language – for example ‘house’ – bears no

real connection to an actual building. The world ‘blue’

could have been used instead. A word is an arbitrary

thing with no meaning in and of itself. It is the shared

understandings among a people that confer meaning on a

word so that it goes without saying what a person means

when he or she uses that word. Any word is therefore

merely a symbol to represent something, and because its

meaning is shared, communication is possible. Different

cultures generate different languages, dialects, idioms

and even accents.

Learning the shared agreements of a culture, then, is

at the heart of how culture is created and maintained.

Communication is all-important in how a culture is

learned and shared. For a society cultural reproduction

becomes a major goal, and this is ensured through

different ways of teaching the culture to members so that

the shared values and norms are constantly being

reproduced. Enculturation describes the process through

which we learn culture and is part of the more general

process of socialisation. Becoming human, then, refers

to learning the rules of the society, many of which are

based on the need to have a common understanding of

social life. Diffusion is another term that describes how

culture spreads from one society to another. Migration

and the effects of the mass media are two ways by which

diffusion can occur.

If culture is a set of learned behaviours, then culture

has to pre-date our entry into it. We were born into a

society that already had a set of behaviours that were

really symbols signifying shared meanings. We had to

learn all the subtle meanings that we as a cultural group

shared. For example, growing up in the Caribbean we

learned that planting the land was a valuable pursuit, but

also, paradoxically, that farmers did not enjoy high social

status. If we decided to become farmers we would have

to deal with the set of shared meanings for our work that

we had learned and opted to reject. Thus, although the

ways culture is taught tend to reproduce it, that may not

always be the case. The shared meanings are negotiated

meanings and these are subject to alteration and change.

If, for example, an entire graduating class with BSc

qualifications in agriculture went to work as farmers, the

shared meanings of who a farmer is would undergo some

change.

Identify what were (and are) the processes through

which you learned (and are learning) about your

culture.

Culture as subculture

One way people have of making meaning is to reduce

complexity. A popular way of using the term ‘culture’

is to refer to a characteristic set of values and attitudes

shared by a specific group or subculture within a larger

group. We hear about organisational culture, political

culture, an examinations culture, migration culture,

and so on. This shows us that for something carrying

as many varied and contested meanings as ‘culture’, it is

perhaps more meaningful when it is specifically defined

and applied to a subculture.

Focusing on something tangible, however, is often an

easy way out in trying to describe phenomena as complex

as culture. Running through most of the ways culture is

described in popular use is the understanding of having

common customs and values and deriving meanings

in similar ways. And, while society and culture may

seem fused in certain interpretations (for example, high culture is often

associated with high society), there is a

strong sense in which culture is believed to be occurring

within a society. Thus, ‘the culture of a society’ makes

sense, and not vice versa.

Disciplinary perspectives on culture

Geography

The study of the interaction between the physical

landscape and human activity invites us to view culture

as the ways people have found to adapt, and adapt to,

the environment in which they live. In this view, then,

a particular location is the important factor in generating

culture, and adaptations are the public and shared ways in

which culture is manifest. For example, economic activity

is directly related to the physical and human resources

in a locality, and how such activities are developed and

organised depends on the skills and expertise of the

people. Thus, agricultural organisation – be it subsistence,

peasant or plantation economies – describes a particular

way of adapting the skills of people and the possibilities of

the landscape. The determinant of culture, then (or what

causes it), is the adaptive capacity of the people and the

land. There is no real distinction in geography between

studying a society and studying its culture.

History

Periodisation is the main emphasis of history. ‘Ways

of adapting’ or ‘ways of life’ or ‘shared meanings’ are

studied, but under the guise of politics, religious

organisation, diplomacy, economic activity or any other

aspect of social life in a specific historical period or

periods. And they are studied in terms of the social forces

and processes evident in society that are changing these

aspects of social life over time. History therefore studies

culture as an aspect of social organisation. Well-defined

segments of cultural history, such as the Baroque or the

Romantic, are usually attached to their social equivalents

in a particular period, although that period may vary

from country to country. Thus, although the historian

for the most part does not specifically focus on culture,

he or she is studying culture when the focus is on the

political system or social developments associated with

it, for example, and how specific cultures have changed

and adapted over time.

If this is the view of culture from history, what

causes culture – what causes the adaptations,

changes or lack of change to take place?

A specific section of history, effectively a branch of

science, looks at culture in quite a different way, at its

role in human evolution. This touches on two views

we have already encountered – that culture is learned

and shared, and that it is adaptive. Culture knowledge

enabled humans to survive over millennia in that

technical and other knowledge was passed on to each

new generation, who adapted and improved upon it.

Evolutionary biology cites culture (mainly language,

facilitating communication) as the major factor enabling

early humans to survive in greater numbers, enjoy

better health and develop physical attributes that made

them better able to protect and reproduce themselves,

compared with other creatures.

Here again we see an understanding of culture

as an adaptive mechanism. The popular view that

culture is learned and shared seems to be a necessary

first step, though, in understanding culture as an

adaptive mechanism rather than a separate and different

explanation. However, we need to turn to another

discipline, anthropology, to understand the processes

whereby culture becomes an adaptive mechanism.

Anthropology

People usually summarise the work of anthropologists as

‘the study of everything pertaining to a society’, and this

includes two of its main branches – social anthropology

and cultural anthropology.

Anthropologists study all societies from the earliest

to the present day. While their work overlaps with

that of the sociologist, they tend to keep their focus on

culture because it is an important way that societies are

differentiated from each other. However, because culture

is a contested concept, hard to tie down in its overall form,

anthropologists have found it necessary to subdivide it

into specific areas for specialised study. For example, some

anthropologists study material culture – the objects that

a group produces and which differ significantly from the

material culture of other groups. These artefacts include clothing, art in its
various expressions, architecture,

fashion, technological products, utensils and the products

known as ‘popular culture’. For example, the groupings

of the earliest Caribbean peoples such as the Ostionoid

and Barrancoid (Chapter 2) are differentiated based on

what they have left of their material culture.

Another branch of anthropology looks at the ideas,

beliefs, values, assumptions and behaviours of a people,

referred to as its non-material or symbolic culture,

which includes language and other characteristic forms

of interaction. This subdivision of culture focuses on

the meaning systems that a group has for the symbols

mentioned above. Within the meaning system is what

anthropologists call a group’s ‘ideal culture’ (the ideal

values and norms of that society) and its ‘real culture’

(actual behaviours, which may fall short of its ideals).

Thus, a society may value democracy and have symbols

and practices to uphold it, such as general elections.

Yet some groups, perhaps marginalised groups, remain

persistently unrepresented. The meaning system for

democracy in that culture includes both the ideal and a

recognition that it is not being realised for all.

Clifford Geertz put forward an understanding of

culture as the interpretation of meaning systems. He

emphasised the signs or symbols that we learn, share and

adapt in everyday life (our acts and behaviours like those

shown in Figs 3.8–3.11). He also introduced the concept

of webs of significance. A person exists within a context

of different layers or webs of meaning, which he or she has

helped to spin and which have significance for him or her. This is not a view
from the outside. It deliberately

seeks the perspectives of the group being studied.

According to Geertz, people choose from a set of values

and beliefs (Box 3.3) that can be interpreted by other

members of the community.

People choose their behaviours based on how they

interpret the set of values and beliefs that are meaningful

and intelligible to other members. Common systems of

meanings thus exist, but they are continually created and

recreated because culture is adaptive. BOX 3.3 Beliefs and values

We have seen that at the heart of culture is a set of

beliefs and values. It is these beliefs and values that

confer meanings on any act or behaviour. Because

people share common understandings based on

common beliefs and values they are able to interpret

each other’s acts and behaviours intelligibly. In

another culture such acts and behaviours may have

altogether different meanings because they are

based on a different set of values and beliefs. To

understand what causes culture we therefore need to

acquire a deeper understanding of beliefs and values.

Beliefs

To have a belief is to have deep faith and trust in

something. There is utter conviction and confidence

that what the belief says is certain. One can count

on it. There are many kinds of beliefs that you may

be able to identify in the culture of schooling, for

example, such as:

• high marks in school show that one is ‘bright’ or

‘intelligent’;

• certain types of schools are ‘better’ than others;

• certain subjects are more important than others.

Examples drawn from different aspects of life in

society show how beliefs are deeply embedded in

how we live our lives:

• If a family goes to church every Sunday, this

shows that they are basically ‘good’ people.

• Someone without a job and not actively

looking for one is at risk of a host of negative

consequences.

• Motherhood is a state far more sacred, precious

and cherished than fatherhood, or being childless.

• Visiting friends or relatives where we are not

offered food or drink signifies that something

is wrong – they are being either mean or

unfriendly for some reason.

Values

You will have noticed that it is extremely difficult

to speak of beliefs without bringing in values.

In each of the examples above there is a value

involved. Values refer to how some quality, act,

behaviour, disposition, image, and so on, is ranked

by people sharing a culture. We have a system of

values that is really a set of beliefs ranking certain

things (qualities, acts, behaviours, dispositions,

images) as better than others. Thus, going to church

regularly is highly regarded, as is being gainfully

employed. Motherhood is beset with so many

positive beliefs and values that fathers (and women

who do not have children) feel that they are almost

discriminated against by the dominant beliefs and

values of their society.

There is also a strong belief among Caribbean

people that we must show hospitality to our friends,

neighbours and relatives. This rests on values that

cherish family life, friendship and camaraderie, an

ethic of helping others, as well as the desire to look

good in the eyes of others. We also seem to value

oral communication a great deal, and humour, so

that visitors give us a chance to talk and make jokes

as we relax. The significance placed on visiting friends

and relatives as regularly as we can is based on all

the values mentioned above. You may note, though,

that visiting friends and relatives is becoming less

important as we become more and more enmeshed

in the cultures of today’s urban living and influences

from abroad. Thus, values undergo change. Culture, then, is the context in
which people interact

within webs of significance. Living in these webs means

that one is continually interpreting signs and symbols –

language, gestures, habits, ceremonies, rites of passage

(for example, going to school) or shopping. Definitions

of culture which say that it is learned, shared or adaptive

need a deeper explication, possibly through greater

attention to the meaning systems in which people are

embedded. Thus, a deeper representation of culture will

emphasise how people actively interpret it according to

some meaning system (values and beliefs) that is publicly

intelligible. Values and beliefs, then, seem to be at the

heart of culture.

Sociology

Sociology sees culture as a social phenomenon. In other

words, various explanations of culture have different

emphases because of the difference in social location

between groups. There are three aspects to this:

1. Reducing complexity. In defining culture,

complexity is glossed over in favour of short,

precise, all-encompassing statements like ‘ways of

life’, ‘learned behaviour’, ‘shared meanings’ and

‘adaptive mechanisms’. While these statements seem

to summarise a lot, they need to be deconstructed to

understand their usefulness – and their limitations.

However, most people feel they understand the

summary version and do not need to explore in-depth

explanations of culture. In addition, notions of change

and dynamism are not evident in these statements,

except for ‘adaptive mechanism’.

‘High culture’, ‘mass culture’ and ‘global culture’

refer to art, creative expressions, artefacts, media and

technology, and are attempts to understand culture

through its products. However, the attempts do not

really get off the ground as the processes behind their

production are not examined. Similarly, attempts to

simplify culture by pinpointing only some aspects of

social life for study – for example, the drug culture,

student culture, the culture of poverty – are clearly

saying that studying the culture concept is too large

and unwieldy an undertaking. In trying to understand

the social and its impact on ‘culture’, what we see are

clear attempts to simplify complexity in various ways.

2. Social constructions. Sociologists acknowledge

that culture exists in a social context and inevitably

people will construct a view of culture that takes into

account the interaction and relationships of social

groups. There are those who see culture as reflecting

social life, as a mirror of the society. In this view,

culture has a structural dimension in that it is the

social structure which is seen to generate (or cause) the

kind of culture experienced by different social groups.

For example, the rich and famous will experience a

different culture from that of the poor. Thus, ‘high

culture’, ‘mass culture’ and the ‘culture of poverty’ are

social constructions of culture built up by those who

emphasise social distinction in explaining culture.

3. Multiple perspectives. A variety of perspectives

exists about almost any issue. We also know that

persons can hold multiple and conflicting views

of reality. Attempts to understand culture that

recognise this social context must acknowledge

variation, complexity, change and interaction. Thus,

explanations themselves will be complex because what

they are attempting to do is to understand how people

make meaning, how they interpret their actions and

those of others, and how they communicate meaning.

Explanations of culture that stress the symbolic – for

example, ‘ordinary culture’, ‘non-material culture’

and ‘webs of significance’ – show that culture is not

easy to understand, mainly because our understanding

of social interaction prevents us from seeing it clearly.

Attaching meanings and deriving understandings is not

straightforward, yet we all do it. What are the processes

we put ourselves through in order to interpret our

actions and those of other people? If we can identify

such processes then we can come close to a complex

understanding of culture. The main objective of this activity was to engage

you

in trying to unravel the webs of meaning in which you

are enmeshed and which you have helped to spin. It may

have helped somewhat to deepen your understandings

of yourself as a social being and it certainly would

have shown that the study of culture, and attempts to

define it or unravel it to unearth its processes, meet

only with partial success. Although we will have to give

explanations of culture from time to time, we should

be aware that such explanations speak of it largely in

a finished and complete way, as if fully understanding

culture was something that was even possible. When

anthropologists have completed a study of some culture,

they know that they have not captured as much as they

would have liked, and what is even more intriguing is

that, in helping you to understand their culture, people

are limited by their own social location.

Feminism
One of the most obvious ways in which our culture

affects us is that it is gendered. This aspect of culture

pervades virtually all societies, whether or not they are

overtly patriarchal. In the Caribbean, for example, men

traditionally were cast as breadwinners and heads of

household, where women looked after the children and

the home. In actual fact these roles have never been

strictly adhered to – women have always earned money

to supplement household income, and many were (and

are) heads of their household. Indeed, Caribbean societies

are often referred to as matrifocal because the focus of the

family is on the matriarch or senior woman (see Box 6.1,

page 143).

Feminism is a movement that grew up in the 1960s in

the belief that patriarchy should be contested, and

women given more opportunities with regard to careers

and life choices.

Feminists draw attention to the so-called glass ceiling

that prevents women from rising above a certain level

in an organisation. They also call for better provision of

childcare and maternity leave to help women to carry on

with their careers after giving birth or return to work

more easily if they have chosen to concentrate on full-

time motherhood for a period.

Sociology, anthropology and history have all

acquired feminist practitioners, and in sociology there

are a number of feminist perspectives, including radical

feminism, liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and black

feminism, each with their own special focus. Feminists

generally see both society and culture as undervaluing

the contributions of women, both historically and in

contemporary society. They also view traditional forms

of femininity and masculinity as problematic, causing

both men and women to feel constrained by received

ideas of how they should behave, and even how they

should feel. Men are often made to feel unmasculine, for

example if they wish to be more involved in childrearing,

or scorned if they decide to take on the homemaking

role to enable a spouse to continue with her career.

As we close this section, let us consider some of the

different levels at which people speak about culture.

You will be able to recognise and categorise some of the

statements in Table 3.1 based on the different perspectives

on culture that we have already explored in this chapter.

DESCRIPTION OF CULTURE ANALYSIS

1 ‘Those children only interested in wearing fancy

footwear, nothing else.’

A This description of culture enters into the shared meanings

attached to an act. It goes on to describe how the person feels

from an insider’s perspective by referring to his or her ‘webs of

significance’.

2 ‘Among youth having things that others value

gives them social capital – prestige.’

B This description of culture merely states a behaviour. It can be

used as an example of ‘ways of life’.

3 ‘The latest and most expensive sneakers make

the wearer feel good, successful and capable

of success.’

C This description goes a step further where someone gives a

theory about why people act the way they do. It is still a view

from the outside. It could be an example of an understanding of

culture as the ‘shared meanings’ people have for something.

Caribbean ‘society’

and ‘culture’ in the

Caribbean and the

diaspora

Let us now apply what we have learned about ‘society’

and ‘culture’ in the previous sections to analysing the

ways that Caribbean society and culture have been

portrayed. Scholars have studied Caribbean social life and

attempted to capture what they believe are the important

aspects of its society and culture.

Many Views of Caribbean Society

Table 3.2 lists a selection of views attempting to portray

Caribbean society, and hence its culture. There are many

other views; one that is widely respected is Beckford’s

analysis of Caribbean society as a plantation society (see

Chapter 2). Examining the statements in Table 3.2 we see

repeated references to the beliefs and values of Caribbean

people. For example, Caribbean people are variously

described as valuing ethnocentric, indigenous, creolised

and separatist beliefs. Our earlier discussions (Box 3.3)

led us to reason that beliefs and values were at the heart

of culture. At this point, though, we come close to

uncomfortably deep questions about culture. For example,

if we have beliefs and values, why are they ethnocentric or

creolised, or even separatist? We met this debate earlier when certain

disciplines

such as history and geography attempted to offer the

determinants of culture. This is when people try to

explain the causes of culture – why do we hold the

beliefs and values we do, and how do our beliefs and

values shape how we adapt and what we adapt?

Beckford’s portrayal of Caribbean society as a

plantation society emphasises its social structure. It

analyses the characteristics of, and relationships between,

the various social groups. For example, it shows that

there is an unwillingness by the elites to allow other

social groups to access social mobility. Groups of similar

ethnicity, wealth, status or education level intermarry and

associate with each other rather than with other groups.

It can be thought of as a Marxist view of social relations

as all the patterns and relationships are dominated by

the ideas and values of the elites. The poorer classes do

not have the power to challenge these interactions and

usually comply with such arrangements, often not seeing

how they are being deprived.

Although this view admits that change has occurred

and is occurring, it tends to emphasise a static social

structure suggestive of the colonial era. The notion of

dynamism and change is also underemphasised in certain

other views of society, as portrayed in Table 3.2 for

example, plural society or no society. Beckford’s analysis

views culture as mirroring social structure. Thus, the

culture of the elites will differ from the culture of those

at different socioeconomic levels in the society. The

values and beliefs of each group occupying a particular

socioeconomic level will reflect their social location.

For example, beliefs and values are at work in matters

such as marriage and occupation, where those who enjoy

privileged status seek to bring only those they favour into

profitable alliances. They have the power to hire and fire

and the criteria they use are often linked to beliefs and

values attached to caste and class.

A consistent belief among lower socioeconomic

groups in society is that social mobility is necessary to

live a better life. Thus, we are familiar with parents

working very hard to secure a higher standard of living

for their children. These beliefs and values seem to stem

directly from the menial positions that their ancestors

were forced to endure in the colonial era. Among the

wealthier classes, beliefs and values do not necessarily

focus on working hard and self-sacrifice but on strategies

to consolidate their position and exclude others.

However, precisely because we find many questions

about culture to be quite unanswerable, we need to

engage in continuing dialogue to clarify what we can,

rather than take it for granted that we know all about

it. Activity 3.11 focuses on several issues related to the

creation of culture which, as Caribbean people trying to

better understand ourselves and our region, we should

deliberately debate and ponder.

Having gone through the debate of Activity 3.11 you

should be better prepared to interpret the insights offered

by Nettleford (2004) in Activity 3.12 (opposite). You can,

for instance, compare some of your key ideas from Activity

3.11 about how culture is created with the connections

that Nettleford makes. Although the ineffable nature of

culture remains, you will have a sense of making some

headway in understanding the concept of culture.

Culture is a social phenomenon. One cannot keep

the concepts ‘society’ and ‘culture’ apart for very long,

although we have been attempting to do just that in this

chapter in order to clarify what each means.

Cultural Sensitivity

The view is sometimes expressed that understanding

culture helps us to better understand our society. What

does this mean? What have we understood about culture

so far that can help us to clarify this statement?

First, we have seen that culture is ineffable,

indescribable and elusive when we attempt a study

of it and try to define and explain it. We never seem

to truly grasp it. Secondly, we are constantly fielding

social constructions, varied perspectives and attempts to

simplify it. Thus, what we understand of it is conditioned

by our social location and relationships.

If we are unclear about it, then, it is these unclear

understandings of our own culture that we use to view

and assess the culture of others, and that we use to try

to understand our own. Outsiders too have a similar

problem in trying to understand our culture because

they have to do so through the lens of their own culture.

It is interesting to note that anthropologists who go to

live in certain cultures to study them better find that the longer they stay
and become comfortable, the more

difficult it is to make insightful observations.

What such understandings confer is a degree of

‘cultural sensitivity’ that enables us to better understand

the society. For example, if we examine any issue in our

society today we see that there are competing views from

different social groups. We must hold back the urge to

pronounce a judgement on the views of others, while

we acknowledge our imperfect cultural understandings,

as well as that others (and ourselves) act from their own

social location. Thus, issues of religion, youth, race and

ethnicity, which appear in the society from time to

time, can be better understood if we do not judge and

assess from our individual viewpoint as if it were the

only reference point in resolving the issue. Such cultural

sensitivity can only come about through a study of culture

and the recognition that we are hampered in finding out

much about it because we are too deeply embedded in it.

Yet it is all that we have to help us understand our society.

Anthropologists call for us to ‘understand our

understandings’, meaning that we should attempt to

acknowledge how partial and incomplete they are. A

good way of checking this is to reflect on the views of

people in the society about a topical issue, perhaps in the

newspapers or on talk shows. You will notice that among

those who do not have a well-developed sense of cultural

sensitivity there are strong views based on the person’s

social location and experience. There is no recognition

that they may have only a partial view; rather they give

the impression that what they believe is right and others

should recognise how right they are.

Someone who is less certain that they have a thorough

understanding, or the only true and correct understanding

of the issue, will make a greater effort in trying to make

sense of oppositional views based on the nature of

culture. They will be able to consider what they know

of the beliefs and values of a group and reflect on how

they are conditioned by time and place, by conflict, by

consensus and by change. They will be increasingly wary

of statements that declare a bias as if it were an unshakable

truth – for example, ‘the government does not help poor

people’, ‘you have to know somebody to get a job’,

‘Muslim groups in society have a hidden agenda’, ‘the US

is the greatest country on earth’, ‘voodoo is hocus-pocus’,

‘homosexuals are vile’, and so on.

An orientation based in cultural sensitivity enables

you to see that nothing is a ‘given’. Everything should be

challenged to determine as best as we can the extent to

which someone in the grip of their own beliefs and values

is relating to others in ways that suggest that these beliefs

and values are universal and are a ‘given’. If such is the

case among groups in the society, then communication closes down. No one
will be able to hear what others are

saying because what is said will be screened through a set

of beliefs and values deemed to be superior.

The student of culture, however, brings a certain

awareness to an understanding of issues in the society that

is conditioned by the very nature of culture. It is so elusive,

some say, that all we see is the tip of the iceberg, yet we

all live in it, act on it and are quite comfortable with it.

Thus we lead a somewhat ambiguous existence. If we are

prepared to admit that we live out acts, beliefs and values

that we ourselves understand imperfectly, then we are

better able to deal sensitively with issues in the society as

they arise, and in so doing deepen our own understandings.