[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty
There is not a racial take in weber ' s conceptualization. Weber is looking at the sociohistorical evolution of how religious (cultural) ideas gave rise to capitalism in the west and not elsewhere.
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org> </div><div>Date:02/10/2015 7:14 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty </div><div>
</div>On 10 February 2015 at 02:01, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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] culture!"
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 <email@example.com>
> Date: 02/09/2015 8:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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?