[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty
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!"
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?