[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty
I would also be cautious about covering an entire society with the same blanket (dogmatic society). Surely it's not true of all, mainly those whose dogma is important for them to perpetuate.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:15 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty
On 10 February 2015 at 02:01, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <email@example.com>
> If max weber is correct, in terms of the protestant ethic giving rise
> to the spirit of capitalism and the ever-increasing rationalization of
> western society, "it make sense to describe a dogmatic society, or
> a[n] institution run by administrators, as a [socioreligious]
Do you mean the protestant work ethic, Paul? Perhaps you (or Weber) are conflating protestant with WASP?
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 02/09/2015 8:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Thoughts on culture & liberty
> I'm not sure if this is related to Paul's inquiry.
> I have been considering some of the fundamentals and prerequisites for
> developmental education and related issues. In his articles, Vladimir
> Zinchenko refers to culture as that which fosters (and stimulates)
> psychological development. It seems to me that Zinchenko includes
> "liberal relations" within this remit, e.g. to delegate responsibility
> and authority in equal measure, relations of trust, zpd dynamics, an
> open regard for possibilities and encouragement for independent
> thinking -- the sort of interpersonal regard that may be summed up as a regard for liberty.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but are these relations not the essence of
> culture as opposed to, say, the man made parts of the environment or
> the collective memories of a society etc? For example, does it make
> sense to describe a dogmatic society, or a institution run by administrators, as a culture?
> Might it not, actually, be more correct to describe it by its relative
> absence of culture?