Wednesday, May 19, 2010

A DISCUSSION OF TERRY EAGLETON’S CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CULTURE

INTRODUCTION
The history of the concept of culture is complex and tantalizingly ambiguous. Intellectuals from various fields have attempted to disentangle the manifold meanings which have become implicit in the term. These scholars have sought to find a basis for one unambiguous concept of culture that either resolves the differences between the existing meanings or replaces these with an entirely new definition of the term. Yet no satisfactory solution has evolved. In his well-known book called The Idea of Culture (2000), Terry Eagleton offered various important insights into the understanding of the concept of culture. He introduced several notions that are related and have very slight differences namely; culture, nature and civilization and highlighted the contrasts between them, more especially, between culture and nature but offered an important relationship between the two. More importantly, he linked the idea of culture to liberation. Eagleton’s work therefore, forms a rich set of reflections about culture, and its methods, and the ethics of liberation.

This essay critically discusses and responds to Terry Eagleton’s conceptualization of culture as presented in his book called “The Idea of Culture (2000).” It also outlines, some of the critical problems in the foundations of Eagleton’s view on culture, and suggests ways, in which some of his conclusions can better be improved, better supported or better applied. It is to the interest of this essay to start by defining what culture is, and then discussion shall follow before drawing the conclusion.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Eagleton (2000) starts by providing different versions of culture while setting the background. He suggests that “culture” as a word has evolved and keeps on changing its meaning with time. He then agrees with many scholars by saying culture is the way of life of a particular group of people. Culture, according to Barker (2004:7) refers to “the actual grounded terrain of practices, representations, languages and customs of any specific society and the contradictory forms of common sense which have taken root in and shape popular life.” Culture therefore is concerned with questions of shared social meanings, that is, the various ways we make sense of the world.

Looking at Eagleton’s arguments on the conceptualization of culture as presented in the aforementioned book, his arguments could be summarized into four key philosophical issues: Culture and nature, culture and liberation, culture and identity, and finally culture and civilization. On culture and nature, Eagleton gives the view that culture is both which is natural and that which is socially constructed. According to him, culture “suggests both regulation and spontaneous growth” (Eagleton, 2000:4). He further notes that it contains a tension between the making and being made (ibid). Eagleton also sees culture as a tool for liberation and autonomy. He says in the post colonial era, culture emphasizes the issue of liberation than oppression thus it refers to what is inside and outside a person rendering it difficulties in defining (Eagleton, 2000). He also says in the contemporary world, culture is seen as identity, a tool for socialization, a populist and tradition way of life characterized by quality that pervades everything and makes a person feel rooted or at home(Eagleton,2000:26). In other words, it gives people their identity.

DISCUSSION
Reaching this far, this paper finds it that it is ripe time to embark on a critical but precise discussion by providing some examples. At the outset, the biggest challenge of Eagleton’s writing has been to separate the two terms: culture and nature. According to Eagleton (2000:3), “nature produces culture which changes nature.” This is an important point of departure since it shows how the two terms are related and it also shows their inseparability. By asserting that nature produces culture which changes nature, it means that culture has got two dimensions. Culture is that which is naturally given and that which is humanly constructed.

That nature produces culture which changes nature does not need to be overemphasized here. There are several points to buttress this argument. For example, MacCormarck (1980:1) notes that “to exist as a species we must eat, copulate and meet other basic animal needs.” These things are natural in that they are necessary for all animals to live. In other words natural things are the ones people cannot do without them for example drinking, eating, elimination and sleeping. MacCormarck (1980:6) further notes that “the natural is that which is innate on our primate heritage and the cultural is that which is arbitrary and artificial.” For example, nature produces children; both male and female who procreate, eat, defecate and satisfy other survival needs (ibid). All these things come naturally from nature and form our different cultures.

On the other hand, this paper also supports the idea that culture is also socially constructed. This is so because much as there are certain things like eating, copulating and defecating which are natural, the society formulates rules and regulations which define how individuals ought to do these things in a society. For example, “societies create etiquettes of eating, the time, place and position for ejaculation”, what is moral or immoral, and all these things are cultural (MacCormarck, 1980:2). Culture therefore “is not programmed into the individual’s genetic structure but it is learned and most intensively in the early years of life” (Mead, 1994:11). It is precisely from this reason that Eagleton notes that culture is not separated from institutions which are mitochondria or powerhouses for “production, dissemination and regulation” (2000:21).

These institutions can imply political structures in society, media, educational institutions, religious institutions, family as nucleus of the society so on and so forth. For example, Ngugi wa Thiong’o argues that African schools or education teach western cultures to the Black people (Ngugi, 1986:14-15). By doing so, children acquire new meanings and values through especially language. Therefore, language is regarded as the machinery for constructing culture since language is a symbol and it is through language that people perceive and articulate their self awareness (Ngugi, 1986:13). Religious institutions also assist in constructing culture in many societies. For example, religious institutions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or African traditional religion, have certain values or practices that their followers follow to the letter. Each and every religion, for example, has got its dressing code, symbols and meanings. All these things are not natural but agreed upon in these religions.

The media are also not an exception as far as construction of culture is concerned. Television, for example, gives people a certain “symbolic environment—an environment that cultivates a specific world view” (Mc quail, 2002:100). For instance, some people after watching a certain western film, they try to be identified with certain actors or actresses in areas of articulation of language especially English, walking style, dressing and many more. In this case, such people acquire new ways of life that they did not have before. Eagleton (2000:6) also notes that the state “inculcate in its citizens the proper sorts of spiritual disposition.” This means that the state is another institution that helps to construct culture.

But they are not only these institutions that create culture. Society also helps in constructing culture. For example, in some Malawian tribes, they practice initiation ceremonies which are actually based on agreed premises in the society. According to them that is their culture and they cannot live without it. It is also interesting to note that even marriages are culturally constructed. It is the society which counts what should be regarded as marriage. In some areas of the world cohabitation is not regarded as marriage whilst others affirm it. One is also to find out that even some countries, Malawi for example, have created new culture of minority such as homosexuality which calls for members of the same sex to be marrying each other. This was not there in the past but it has been socially constructed.


Terry Eagleton has also linked the idea of culture to liberation and identity. On this, he says culture is a “kind of ethical pedagogy which fit us for political citizenship by liberating the ideal of collective self buried within each of us” (Eagleton, 2000:7). He also says culture embodies our common humanity and it plucks unity from diversity (ibid). This point deserves more attention. Indeed, one cannot agree more. For example, Ngugi (1986:13) notes that “language—any language has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture.” It is not only language that gives people an identity but also cultural expressions such as food, music, paintings, poems, dressing and so forth. Moreover, culture also acts as a valuation concept which has a sense of approving or disapproving what is the best and what is not (Hebdige, 1993:361).In this sense, culture carries a differentiation factor between us and them which is a source of identity. It precisely from this reason that Terry Eagleton views culture as located in particular places and specific boundaries (2000:3).

However, what should be noted here, and perhaps what Eagleton losses sight of, is the fact that with the coming in of modernization which has been reinforced through globalization, the idea of culture as that which is located in particular places and boundaries, is to a large extent problematic. As Barker (2004:40) has observed, “nowadays place is socially constructed site or location in space marked by identification or emotional investment.” It is now forged globally by virtue of the movement of cultural elements from one location to another. This therefore requires the redefinition of the meaning of place. In particular, it involves the dislodging of long standing authenticity claims whereby a place is considered to be solely local, natural, true and pure (ibid). Gone are the days when cultural practices could be claimed as authentic, pure and locally bounded because culture has been contaminated by globalization. There is need to escape from a model of culture as a locally bounded ‘whole of life.’ Therefore, the processes of globalization suggest that we need to rethink our concept of culture. Culture is not best understood in terms of locations and roots but more as hybrid and creolized cultural routes in global space (ibid).

CONCLUSION
This essay has discussed Terry Eagleton’s conceptualization of culture as expressed in his book called The Idea of Culture (2000). The essay has thrown weight behind Eagleton’s idea that culture is both what is humanly constructed and naturally given. The paper has also showed how people construct what is moral and immoral according to their society’s agreed values and through various institutions such as the media, religions, education and society. Finally, it has looked at how culture gives people identity and liberation and the contemporary challenges that globalization is posing on culture. In summary, although a broad chorus of praise echoes a wide range of criticisms on Eagleton’s conceptualization of culture, it should be borne in mind that his ideas have a particular significance and provide thought-stimulating insights into the understanding and conceptualization of culture.


































REFERENCES
Barker, C. (2004). Cultural studies: Theory and Practice. 2nd Ed. New Delhi. Sage Publications Inc.
Eagleton. T. (2000). The idea of Culture. Oxford: Blackwell

Hebdige, D. (1993). “From Culture to Hegemony”. In During, S. (Ed). The Cultural Studies: Reader. New York. Routledge. Pp 357-367.

MacCormarck C. and Strathern M. (1980). Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
Mc Quail, D (2002). McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Mead, R (1994). International Management: Cross Cultural Dimensions. Cambridge: Blackwell

Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986). Decolonizing the Mind: Politics of Language in African
Literature. London: James Currey.

No comments:

Post a Comment