culture

Generally, we keep using the word culture continuously in our day-to-day life. Also, the word culture is used in different meanings. For example, this does not happen in our culture and it is accepted in the western culture. Sociology as a science has a clear meaning of any concept which reflects scientific understanding. Therefore, the meaning of culture as a sociological concept is “learned behavior”. That is, whatever a person learns from childhood till now, for example, the way of eating, the way of talking, knowledge of language, writing and reading and other abilities, this is culture.

 

Which human behavior is culture? There are many sides to human behavior

(a) Biological behavior like – silent, sleeping, walking, running.

(b) Psychological behavior like thinking, fearing, laughing etc.

(C) Social behavior like- Greeting, reading-writing, talking etc.

Under culture, we do not take biological behavior or psychological behavior. Culture is that aspect of human behavior that a person learns as a member of society, such as wearing clothes, religion, knowledge, etc. An important difference between human and animal society is that human could create culture while animal society lacks it.

Do you know how humans were able to create culture?

Leslie A. White has mentioned five special abilities in human beings, which man has got from nature and as a result of which he can create culture:

The first feature is – the ability of a human to stand, due to which the person does useful work with both hands.

The second is the texture of man’s hands, as a result of which he is able to freely move his hands in any direction and create different types of objects through it.

Third – Human’s sharp vision, due to which he is able to observe and observe nature and events and makes various discoveries and inventions.

Fourth – developed brain, with the help of which man can think better than other creatures. It is because of this brain that he presents logic and is able to establish cause-effect relationship.

Fifth – Ability to create symbols. Through these symbols, a person is able to transfer his knowledge and experiences from one generation to another. The development of language became possible only through symbols and people were able to exchange their knowledge and ideas. Thus it is clear that symbols have a great contribution in the creation, development, change and expansion of culture.

 

 

 

Do you know ?

 

The first mention of culture in the book Primitive Culture, published in 1871 by the famous anthropologist Edward Benart Tylor (1832-1917). Tylor is mainly known for his definition of culture, according to which, “Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and all other capacities and habits acquired by man as a society.” Tyler has used culture in a broad sense. According to him, being a social animal, whatever a person possesses and learns is culture. Only non-material elements are included in this definition.

 

Meaning and definition of culture

The definition of culture given by Robert Beersteed (The Social Order) is that “Culture is that whole complex which includes all those things which we think, act and possess as members of society”. In the definition, both the physical and non-material aspects of culture have been included.

In the words of Harshkovits (Man and His Work) “Culture is the man-made part of the environment. It is clear from this definition that the environment has two parts, first – natural and second – social. Social environment includes all material and non-material things. For example, chair, table, pen, register, religion, education, knowledge, morality etc. Harshkovits has called this social environment, which is created by humans, as culture.

 

According to Bogardus, “Culture is the name of all the ways of thinking and acting of a group.” On this, you should note that, like Beerstead, Bogardus has emphasized both its material and non-material aspects.

 

Malinowski – Culture is the creation of man and a means by which he achieves his goals. You say that “culture is a total way of life which fulfills the physical, mental and other needs of a person.”

Redfield defined culture as “the lifestyle of the members of any society”.

It is clear from the appropriate definitions that various sociologists

Scientists and anthropologists have given the definition of culture on the basis of their respective viewpoints. In fact, culture is the way of life of the society and in this form it is passed on from generation to generation after necessary changes and modifications. All types of thought and behavior come under culture. Therefore, it is clear that in culture that complex totality of material and non-material elements, which a person receives as a member of society and through which he passes his life.

 

 

 

Nature or Characteristics of Culture

 

After knowing the views of various sociologists regarding culture, some of its characteristics become clear, which is also helpful in knowing and understanding its nature. Some of the key features are being discussed here

 

1. Culture is learned behavior – Culture is a learned behavior. It is not acquired by the individual through inheritance from his ancestors, but is learned through the process of socialization in the society. This learning goes on continuously till life i.e. from birth to death. You need to know that culture is learned behavior, but not all learned behavior can be called culture. The behavior learned by animals cannot be called culture, because whatever animals learn, they cannot teach it to any other animal. Those habits and ways of behavior come under culture, which are learned by all the members of the society in general. In this context, Lundberg has said that, “Culture is not related to a person’s innate tendencies or zoological heritage, but it is based on social learning and experiences.”

 

II. Culture is social – The quality of sociality is found in culture. The whole society and social relations are represented under culture. Therefore it can be said that the behavior learned by any one or two-four persons cannot be called culture. Any behavior cannot be called culture until it is learned by most of the people of the society. Culture represents the entire way of life of a society. This is the reason why every member of the society adopts the culture. Culture is also social in the sense that it is not the property of any particular person or two or four persons. It is for every member of the society. Hence its expansion is wide and social.

 

III. Culture is Transmissive – It is because of this quality of culture that when culture passes from one generation to another, the experiences and understandings of generations get added to it. Due to this, there is a slight change and modification in the culture. Due to this quality of culture, man invents new things on the basis of his previous knowledge and experience. You have to understand that – even animals have the ability to learn something. But they are unable to teach what they have learned to their children and other animals. This is the reason that despite having the ability to learn a lot, culture has not developed in them. Man develops and expands his culture very easily through language and symbols and also transfers it from one generation to another. This also maintains the continuity of the culture.

 

iv. Culture is made by man (Culture is Man-Made) – Culture refers to all those elements, which have been created by man himself. For example, our religion, beliefs, knowledge, ethics, ways of behaving and means of various needs i.e. chair, table etc. have been created by man. In this way all this culture Harshkavits says that “culture is the man-made part of the environment”.

Culture Satisfies Human Needs – Culture has the quality of satisfying human needs. Even the smallest unit of culture directly or indirectly fulfills or helps to fulfill human needs. Sometimes a unit of culture may appear to be redundant or ineffective on the outside, but it has an important place in the overall picture.

 

Thoughts of Malinowski:- Famous anthropologist Malinowski states that the existence of even the smallest element of culture depends on its ability to satisfy needs. When any element of culture does not have the quality to fulfill the need, then its existence also ends. For example, the elements of culture that were there in ancient times were destroyed because they were unable to fulfill the requirement, in this Sati Pratha can be seen as an example. Similarly, a unit in a system may sometimes appear to be very small but that unit is also very important for the system. Thus, no element of culture is dysfunctional but rather the fulfillment of a human need in any form. Does it i

.vi Every society has its own distinctive culture (Culture is Distinctive in every Society) – Every society has a distinctive culture. We know that any society is meant for a specific geographical and natural environment. I

Social environment and culture are created according to C. For example, the geographical environment of the people living on the mountains is different from the geographical environment of the people of the plains. Similarly, the people living in these two places have different needs. Like – food, way of living, dance, singing, religion etc. Therefore, the culture of both develops according to the need in relation to the geographical environment. When there are changes in the behavior and needs of the society, then there is a change in the culture. The rate and direction of change in the behavior of people in different societies is different. Because of which there is variation in the rate and direction of change in culture.

 

vii. Culture has the quality of adaptation (Culture has Adoptive Quality) – An important feature of culture is that it gets adapted to the needs over time. Culture is according to the environment and situation of the society. When the environment and circumstances change, the culture also molds itself accordingly. If this specialty and quality is not there, then the existence of culture will not remain. Due to change in culture according to time and situation, the usefulness of uraki does not end. The main objective and function of every culture is to fulfill the physical, mental and social needs of the village. Culture has to be molded according to these needs. Do you know – the needs of people have been different in every era. New needs have been born in place of old needs and they also change from time to time. Along with these, the quality of adaptation is in the culture. This is the reason why culture changes, but culture changes very slowly.

 

viii. Culture is Super-Organic – Man created culture by using his mental and physical abilities, which is above organic. A person develops by living in a culture and then a human creates a culture which is above the human. The basis of all human capabilities is organic, but this culture goes above organic. In this sense, culture has been called super-organic.

 

ix. Culture is super-individual – both the creation and continuity of culture do not depend on any particular person. Therefore it is super-individual. Culture is not created by any particular person, but culture is created by the whole group. Each cultural entity has a history of its own, which is beyond any individual. Culture is the result of social invention, but this invention is not the brainchild of any one person. Thus no one person can be the creator of the whole culture. The ability to change and modify it is not in the control of any particular person. Thus culture is hyper-personal.

x There is balance and organization in culture (Culture has The Integrative) – There are many elements and sections within the culture, but they are not separate from each other, rather interrelationship and interdependence are found in them. Of culture. Each unit does not work in isolation from each other, but all work together. This type of balance and organization creates a cultural framework. Under this structure, each unit has a certain position and function, but all of them are based and related to each other. In any one part or unit of culture. If there is a change, the other party or other entity is also affected.

 

Culture is Ideal for the Group – The culture of each group is ideal for that group. This type of belief is found in all societies. All people consider their own culture as ideal and consider their culture higher than other culture. Culture is also ideal because its behavior pattern is not of a particular person but of the whole group.

 

You need to understand that – according to Emile Durkheim, culture is a symbol of collective-consciousness, that is, it does not represent a particular person but a group, so it is considered ideal, that is why it is ignored against collective consciousness. And that person is condemned but those who respect it are praised.

 

types of culture

 

Ogerbon and Nimkoff have discussed two types of culture –

 

Material culture and non-material culture. 1. material culture

 

-1. All those material and tangible things are included under material culture, which have been created for humans, and which we can see and touch. The number of material culture is more in modern society than in primitive society, Prof. Beerstead has tried to make it more clear by dividing all the elements of material culture into 3 main categories. Machines 1. Equipment iii. Utensils iv. Buildings v. Roads vi. Bridge vii. Craft articles viiiArtistic articles ix. Clothing x. Vehicles xi Furniture xii. Foodstuffs xiii Medicines etc.

 

The characteristics of physical culture are as follows

1. physical

A culture is tangible.

2 . It keeps on increasing continuously.

3. Physical culture can be measured.

4. Changes happen quickly in the original culture.

5. Its usefulness and benefits can be evaluated.

6. It cannot be accepted without making changes in material culture. That is, there is no difference in its form in taking it from one place to another and adopting it. For example motor vehicle, dress and cloth etc.

 

Non-material culture – All those non-material and intangible things are included under non-material culture, which do not have any size, shape and color etc. Non-material culture is transferred from one generation to another through the process of socialization and learning. In this way we can say that non-material culture refers to that part of culture.

107 is in favor, which does not have any concrete form, but controls, regulates and influences human behavior through thoughts and beliefs. Pro . Bearstead called ideas and ideal rules as the most important under non-material culture and said that ideas are the main part of non-material culture. There can be a certain number of views, yet Prof. Beerstead has presented some sets of ideas Scientific truth Religious belief Mythology iv. Anecdotal literature vi Superstition vii. Sutras viii proverbs etc. All these ideas are part of non-material culture. Ideal rules are not related to thinking, but to the way of behaving. That is, those rules or methods of behavior which the culture considers as its ideal, are called ideal rules. Pro . Beerstead has divided all ideal rules into 14 parts. Law 2. Act 3. Rule 4. Regulation 5. Practices 6, Generalities 7. Ethos 8. Prohibition 9. Fashion 10. Sanskar 11. Karma-Kand 12. Rituals 13. Custom 14. virtue .

 

The characteristics of non-material culture are as follows

1. Non-material culture is intangible.

2 . It is difficult to measure it.

3. Non-material culture is complex.

4. Evaluating its usefulness and benefits is a difficult task.

Change in non-material culture is very slow.

6. When non-material culture is accepted from one place to another, then there is a slight change in its form.

7. Non-material culture is related to the spiritual and inner life of man.

 

difference between material and non-material culture

 

Culture is created only by the combination of material and non-material aspects, but there are some differences between the two, which are as follows

1. Material culture is also called civilization, while non-material culture is simply called culture.

2 . Material culture is tangible, while non-material culture is intangible. For example, the train and the thought and mind of the scientist, which led to the invention of the train. Here the train is the material culture, while the scientist’s idea is the non-material culture.

3. It is easier to imbibe material culture than non-material one. It can be accepted anywhere, but it is not easy to accept non-material culture. Others face difficulties in accepting. Very easily we are not able to accept the ideals and values of other places.

4. Non-material culture changes at a slower rate than material culture. Like – motor, watch etc change, but the beliefs of man do not change soon. ,

5. Since material culture is tangible, it is easy to measure it, but due to non-material culture being immortal, there are difficulties in its measurement. Its measurement is not possible.

6 Growth in material culture happens at a rapid pace, while growth in non-material culture happens at a very slow pace. For example, different types of things come to the fore due to new discoveries and inventions in the society, but the thoughts of a person are found to be years old.

7. The growth and accumulation of non-material culture cannot be explained. But there is growth and accumulation in material culture and it can also be measured.

8. The benefits and usefulness of material culture can be measured and told, but the usefulness and benefits of non-material culture cannot be evaluated. It can only be experienced.

9. Material culture is related to the physical and material life of the person, while non-material culture is related to the spiritual and inner life of the human being.

10. Material culture is simple, while the form of non-material culture is complex. ,

 

 

 

The Structure of Culture

 

1. Cultural Traits

2 . Culture Complex

3. Culture Pattern or Culture Configuration

 

1. Cultural elements – Cultural elements are the smallest units or single elements of culture. Culture is formed by combining these units. Culture is formed by combining these units. Hershkovits has called the cultural element the smallest identifiable unit within a particular culture. Kroeber called it “the least defining element of culture”. For example – handshake, touching feet, taking off one’s headgear, kissing cheeks, providing accommodation to women, saluting the flag, wearing white sari during mourning, vegetarian food. eat ,

Walking barefoot, sprinkling water on idols. It has three main characteristics. Every cultural element has a history related to its origin, whether that history is small or big. II. The cultural element is not static. Mobility is his specialty. III. Cultural elements have the nature of integration. They live together like a bouquet of flowers.

 

2 . Cultural complexes – are made up of cultural elements. When some or many elements together fulfill human needs. Thus, bowing down in front of the idol, sprinkling holy water on it, placing some food in its mouth, folding hands, taking prasad from the priest and singing aarti etc. all these elements together form a religious cultural complex. Piddington called cultural complex as functional association of cultural elements.

 

3. Cultural Pattern – When cultural elements and packages together become related to each other in functional roles, then a cultural pattern is born from them. Culture – The study of the pattern gives knowledge of the main characteristics of a culture. For example – Gandhism, spiritualism, caste-system, joint family, ruralism are cultural complexes of Indian culture which introduce the characteristics of Indian culture.

 

Clark Wissler has mentioned 9 basic cultural elements that give rise to culture-pattern

1. speech and language

2 . Physical Elements – 1 Food Habits Habitat iii Transport iv . Utensils etc. v. Arms viBusiness and Industry

3. art

4. mythology and scientific knowledge

5. religious ceremonies

6. family and social species

7. property

8. Government

9. war .

 

Kimble Young has included 13 elements of culture in universal patterns

1. Models of Movement: Sign and Language

2 . Things and riots for the welfare of humans

3. quantity and mode of transport

4, Exchange of goods and services – trade commerce

5. Types of Property – Real and Personal

6. Sexual and family patterns – marriage and divorce, types of kinship relations, succession, guardianship.

7. Social Control and Governing Institutions – Ethos Public Opinion Law War

8. Artistic expression: building arts, painting, culture

9. leisure time activity

10. religious and magical ideas

11. mythology and philosophy

12. science

13. The cultural structure of foundational interaction processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

functions of culture

(Function of Culture)

 

1. for person

for 2 groups

 

1. for person

 

Culture makes man human.

Solving complex situations.

iiiSatisfaction of human needs

iv. personality building

V: Provides values and ideals to human beings.

vi determines the habits of human beings.

vii. determines morality.

viii Brings uniformity in practices.

ix Increases experience and efficiency.

x. Provides security to the individual.

xi. solves problems.

xii. Contributes to socialization.

xiii Determines status and role.

xiv. instrumental in social control

 

, for 2 groups

 

It keeps social relations stable.

ii. Broadens the outlook of the individual.

iii Creates new needs.

 

 

 

, Phase of Culture

 

Dr. Dube has discussed six stages of culture.

1. early stone age

2 . paleolithic age

3. neolithic age

4. copper age

5. bronze age

6. iron Age

 

regulatory basis of culture
Normative Bases of Culture

 

Emile Durkhim said in relation to the need for regulatory bases to maintain the unity and stability of the society. W. G. Sumner stressed the need for regulatory bases for the effective functioning of society. When we talk about regulatory bases of culture, we are talking about all those abstract forms that control social behavior in one way or the other. You guide and influence. Example – rules – values, customs, conventions, laws, customs etc. Let’s do

 

Social Sanction There are two types of social discipline

1. Positive Sanction

2 . Negative Sanction: Positive discipline is that which makes an action expected and the doing of which increases social respect. For example, reaching office on time is a good thing and those who do so are considered good. Negative discipline, doing such work which brings down reputation, is punished. For example, raising hands on women in India is considered bad, and brings down prestige.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cultural lag

(Culture Lag)

 

 

 

This concept was discussed by W. F. Ogbum in his book ‘Social Change’ in 1925. According to Agibern, culture can be broadly divided into two parts.

1. physical and

These two parts of material culture do not change at the same rate. For some reason a part moves forward. The other one is left behind. As a result, a situation of cultural delay arises. Due to this diseases arise in the society. As soon as the left behind part is brought forward, there is a change in the society.

Thus, according to Ogvern, Sanskrit. Logical delay is a mantra in the hands of sociologists by which society changes. All the examples given by them make it clear that material culture moves ahead and non-material remains behind. He was criticized a lot for this. Accepting these criticisms, in 1957, in his book ‘On Social and Culture Change’, he presented it in the form of a principle, defining cultural delay. According to them – a culture lag occurs when end the two parts which are co – related or change before or in greater degree than the other part does their by causing less adjustment between the part then exist its previously. It is clear from this definition that following conditions are necessary for cultural delay. Any two variables whether both physical or one physical one non-physical. II. There must be correlation between the two variables. III. Adaptation between the two variables is necessary at a particular point in time. IV. For some reason, one moves forward and the other back. As a result, there should be delay in both.

 

There are four factors causing cultural lag

1. conservatism

2 . allegiance to the past

3. fear of new ideas

4. Vested interests

 

Criticizing this, Mackiwar and Page have said that Technological Lag should be used instead of Cultural Lag. Culture Lag is unimportant in today’s sociology because it only talks about two variables whereas today in any science there is talk of Multiple of factors.

 

Culture Change – The question arises why culture changes. Sumner has given three reasons for this

1. 100% transfer of culture is impossible. 2 . Change in external conditions 3. Attempt to adapt

 

Culture Contact – When two different cultures come in contact with each other, it is called cultural contact. Sanskritization due to cultural contact or on –

 

The process of acculturation begins. Accultraltion (Para-Sanskritisation) – According to Harshkavitsa, “When the elements of two cultures intermingle – meet. It is a two-way process (Two Way Process) like – Indian Muslims and Hindus have adopted each other’s elements.”

 

Cultural Relativism (Cultural Relativism) – Harshkovitas has mentioned this. Cultural relativism means the coexistence of different cultures. We can express cultural relativism by the example of greeting. In India, people join hands to greet, in Western societies they shake hands and take off their hats, in Japan the body is bowed, and in Africa, the Maasai tribe spit on each other. Every human’s experiences, decisions and behavior are according to their culture, this is called cultural relativism. Therefore, Harshkovitas says that no culture should be compared on the basis of values of other culture, rather each culture should be evaluated relative to its own culture.

 

Ethnocentricism (Self-Culture Centricity) – It was discussed by American sociologist W. G. Sumner did it. When people of one culture consider their culture as superior and evaluate all other cultures on the same basis, it is called Ethnocentrism.

Discussing Temperocentricism Bierstedt said that the relation of the past of each aspect is considered more important.

 

TransCulturation (Para-Culturation) The process in which two or more cultures exchange themselves. It is called Trans-Culturation.

 

Cultural Pluralism Cultural Pluralism refers to a society where many people live together. Everyone respected each other, no one considered anyone inferior. Indian culture for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civilization

Civilization

 

Generally, people use the word “civilization” in the sense of culture, that is, in common parlance, both of them are understood in the same sense. Under civilization, we include those material things through which we fulfill our needs. For example house, table, pen which can be seen and touched. It is also called material culture. Why is the Harappan civilization called a civilization?

 

The English word “Civilization” is derived from the Latin language Civitas and Civis, which means urban and urban group. Such groups are educated, well-mannered and indicative of equality. The behavior of people in a civilized society is complex. Their language develops and differentiation and specialization are found in many works. Many scholars have given the definition of civilization. The definitions given by some sociologists are being mentioned.

 

While giving the definition of civilization, Ogburn and Nimkoff said that civilization is said to be the stage after semi-organic culture.

 

According to Green, “a culture becomes a civilization when it has a written language, science, philosophy, highly specialized division of labor, complex technology, and a political system.”

MacIver and Page have defined civilization differently. By civilization, we mean the entire system and organization that man has created in an effort to control the conditions of his life. In his definition, MacIver has taken the help of social organization.

It also includes physical devices that satisfy human needs. For example, there are typewriters, telephones, presses, motors, etc., which are used as means to achieve human objectives.

 

 

 

 

characteristics of society

 

Like culture, civilization also has some main characteristics,

1 Material form – Material things are included under civilization. Civilization is tangible from the point of view of the material side. That means we can see and touch the world. These material things are also created by human beings. For example, table, chair etc. ,

 

All material things are not included under utilitarian civilization. It includes all those things which are important from the point of view of utility. The usefulness of three things ends, people leave them. That is, civilization provides happiness and satisfaction to human beings.

 

Civilization is the means. , , Civilization is a means because those things are included under it. By whom man fulfills his objectives. It is such a useful object by which man fulfills his objectives. As we travel easily from one place to another by car.

 

4 Transmutability – Changes in civilization happen at a very rapid pace, along with the change in human needs and interests, their husband’s resources also change. This is the reason why there is always change in civilization.

 

5 Fixed direction – The development of civilization takes place towards a certain direction. Its development is always upward. The pace of development of civilization never turns back. There is continuous progress in civilization.

 

6. Measurement possible – It is possible to measure the things that come under civilization.

Receptivity – The quality of receptivity is found in civilization. That is, any person can accept civilization and can benefit from it. A thing may be manufactured or invented in any corner of the world, but people in every field can easily accept it and benefit from it.

 

Optionality – It is not mandatory to adopt all the things that come under civilization. It depends on the desire and interest of the person whether he will adopt that thing or not. For example, a person can travel by motor vehicle, train, bus or even on foot. It depends on the wish of the individual. In this way it is clear that civilization is optional rather than compulsory.

 

difference between civilization and culture

 

 

 

People often use the words civilization and culture in the same sense, but there is a difference between civilization and culture. Civilization is the means while culture is the end. Some common things are also found in civilization and culture. There is a connection between civilization and culture. Civilization prepares the environment for culture and culture is also propagated through civilization only. Culture gives direction to civilization. It is through civilization that culture is transferred from one society to another and from one generation to another. Civilization and culture both influence each other and also influence each other. Both were created and developed to meet the needs of human beings. There is such a close relationship between them that it is difficult to separate them from each other. Despite this, there is a difference between civilization and culture. MacIver and Page have distinguished between civilization and culture. The differences given by them are as follows

 

1. Measurement of civilization is possible, but not of culture – civilization can be measured. Since it is related to the utility of material things, it can be called good-bad, high-low, useful-unusable on the basis of utility. This is not the case with culture. It is not possible to measure culture. It cannot be described as comparatively good-bad, high-low, useful-unusable. People of every group describe their culture as the best. Every culture is the product of the time and circumstances of the society. Hence the question of its valuation does not arise. For example, let us look at new techniques. What is present today is better than the old things and in the coming times even more advanced technology will be present in front of us. We cannot do this kind of comparison with culture. The culture of two places and two eras cannot be said to be superior to each other. telling . Every culture is not said to be useful or useless. measure of culture

 

2 . Society always moves forward, but not culture – there is continuous progress in society. It never goes backwards. MacIver said that civilization does not move forward only, but its progress is only in one direction. Today, new discoveries and inventions are happening all the time, due to which advanced things are available to us in comparison to old things. As a result, there is progress in civilization. There is progress in civilization. Every first step of civilization, every new invention, every new discovery, every new thing is better than the previous step, previous invention, previous discovery, previous thing. But this is not possible with culture. It can never be said with certainty that the poets, novelists, dramatists, etc., change at a faster rate today than in the past. Its direction is also not certain. novelist

Today’s people are better than , playwright, etc. in culture

 

3. Civilization moves forward without effort, not culture – Vishish Prayal’s Sanahahat for the development and progress of civilization, it moves forward very easily and alertly. When there is any new thing, then everyone uses that thing. It is not necessary that we keep full pan in his relation and contribute fully in his invention. That means they can be consumed even without it. Standard Vastua is used without any change in attitudes, interests and thoughts, but for the spread of Eta Bara Naha Ha culture along with the culture, a change in mindset is also required. For example, if a person wants to change his religion, then he has to be mentally prepared for that, but there is no need to think specially for using it. Civilization can be inherited, but not culture. Thus it is clear that the transfer of civilization is of culture. Simple in comparison.

 

4. Civilization can be adopted without any change or loss, but not culture – the elements or things of civilization can be adopted as they are. There is no need for any change in it. When this one thing is invented, people from different places accept it. A physical object can be moved from one place to another without any change in it. For example, when the tractor was invented, it was taken to every village. For this, there was no need for any change in it. But this is not the case with culture. When the elements of culture are accepted from one place to another, there is a slight change in it. Some of its qualities become secondary, while some qualities are added. This is the reason why even after converting religion, people are not able to bring about a complete change in their old beliefs, thoughts and attitudes. Some influence of the previous religion remains. Even after doing Some of his qualities village from one place to another

 

5. Civilization is external, while culture is internal – material things come under civilization. Material things are related to external life, external comforts and facilities. For example, electric fan, television, motor vehicle, etc. People get external comfort and convenience from all these things. But culture is related to the inner life of a person. Like – knowledge, faith, religion, art etc. A person gets mental satisfaction from all these things, thus it is clear that civilization is external, but culture is related to internal life. That is, only physical happiness is obtained from civilization, while culture gives mental happiness.

 

6. Society is tangible, while culture is intangible – civilization is related to material things. Material things are tangible. They can be seen and touched. Almost all people can benefit equally from this, but culture is not related to material things but to non-material things. They can be felt, but they cannot be seen or touched. In this sense, culture is intangible. Civilization refers to the material side of culture. In this sense civilization is tangible. Like – – chair, house, fan, etc. The intangible side of culture is called non-material culture. Like – knowledge, faith, art etc.

 

7. Civilization is the means while culture is the end – Civilization is a means by which we reach our goals and objectives. Culture is an end in itself. Religion, art, literature, morality etc. are the elements of culture. To achieve these, material things such as religious books, paintings, music, dance-instruments, etc. are required. In this way civilization is the means and culture is the end.

 

culture and personality

 

There is a close relationship between culture and personality. The factors that are believed to contribute to the formation of a cultured personality. Among them, the place of culture is the main relationship. Culture gives a certain direction to personality. Personality is considered to be insane. The place of culture is important among them. Culture plays a very important role in the development of personality. It pays to know how these two are related. To know the relationship between these two, it is necessary to know what is culture and personality? What is culture, it has been discussed earlier. So what is a house, it has been discussed earlier. So there is no need to repeat it here. What is personality is being discussed below

 

 

 

the personality

 

 

 

In the language of ordinary speaking people, the meaning of personality is not just the external qualities of a human being, which is evident from its physical structure. Earlier the study of personality was only in psychology, but now it has become a topic of discussion in anthropology as well. There have been many important studies in the field of anthropology, which show the important role of culture in the formation of personality. The word personality is the Hindi adaptation of English ‘Personality’, which is derived from the Latin word ‘Persona’. It means shape and mask. Special people wearing masks in drama etc.

plays a role. On changing the role, the mask also changes. It means to say that there are different types of masks for different roles. The type of role that has to be played, the same type of mask is worn. It is necessary to clarify here that personality does not mean only face, complexion, height and dress. Under this, physical, psychological, social and cultural initiatives are included. Different scholars have given the definition of personality in their own way, according to Allport – ‘Personality is the dynamic organization of the psycho-somatic qualities of the individual which determines its unique harmony with the environment. He has tried to make it clear through his definition that personality is a variable sum of physical and mental qualities of a person, which determines his adaptation with the environment. Because of this, a person behaves differently in different situations. According to Park and Burgess, – “Personality is the sum of those aspects of a person’s behavior that determine the role of the person in the group. Like Allport, Park and Burgess have also described personality as a sum of different qualities. Through these qualities, The behavior and roles of the personality are determined in the group. Edward Sapir has written – * Personality is the sum total of those aspects of an individual’s behavior that give him meaning in society and differentiate him from other members of the community. Merrill and Aldwijs According to – “Personality is a set of innate and acquired qualities related to each individual. He has described personality as the sum of innate and acquired qualities. It is clear from the views of the above mentioned scholars that physical, psychological, social, cultural aspects contribute in the formation of personality. This is the reason why a person is a contributor to a common culture. This is the reason why a person, despite being a member of the same culture, develops a different personality from others.

 

 

basis of personality

 

There are three main bases of building personality,

1. physical aspect

2 . Society

3. culture

 

These three have a hand in the development of personality, that is, as a result of their interaction, personality develops. Physical basis – Under this comes the physical structure, size, complexion, height, weight etc. of the person. Normally a person interprets personality on the basis of these. That is, looking at the physical appearance, a person is said to have attractiveness or a big personality. Hereditaryists call this basis important in the formation of personality. According to them, heredity, body composition, talent, nervous system and endocrine glands contribute in the formation of personality.

 

Social base – The whole social environment comes under this. Lack of society is not the middle. If a person’s zoological constitution is very good, but he comes to social environment. The development of personality is possible in the absence of society, in such a situation the development of his personality cannot take place. The meaning of saying is that the social income structure is very good, but it has been deprived of social contact, and the effect of culture is also possible only through contact. A child cannot be born when it comes to this earth. It means to say that social contact is necessary. It is possible through the process of social socialization that the society develops the personality of an individual. When a child comes to this earth, it is only a biological being. Society develops a person’s personality through a process and then he becomes a social person from a biological phenomenon. Various social institutions, circumstances and roles have an impact on the personality. All the habits, attitudes, attitudes, values and ideals of these are created, due to which the personality develops.

 

Cultural base – Anthropologists have described cultural base as important in the formation of personality. According to him . Many biological abilities are determined by culture. Anthropologists have discussed the formation of different types of personality on the basis of difference of cultures. The names of Mead, Litton, Cardiner, Dubois etc. are prominent among these scholars. Ya. The scholars are known by the name of Culture Personality School. Referring to the interrelationship of culture and personality, John Gillin said that after birth man enters a man-made environment, which has an impact on the personality of the person. Culture determines certain rules and methods for the fulfillment of human needs. Most of the people of the society believe in them. The practices, traditions, customs, customs, religion, language, art etc. which are included under the culture, express the social and collective way of life. Culture also uses rewards and punishments for appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Ruth Benedict while expressing her opinion said that the practices in which a child is born, from the very beginning, his experiences and behavior start happening accordingly. Further, he also told that culture provides raw material to a person, from which he builds his life. If the raw material itself is insufficient, then the development of the person does not take place completely. If the raw material is sufficient then the person

One gets the opportunity to make good use of it. Ferris has called personality the universal aspect of culture. Each society has its own distinctive type of culture, which is different from the other. Each person represents his own culture. This is the reason that due to cultural differences, differences are also found in individuals. According to Kluckhoun and Moore, everyone is in some degree 1. Happens like everyone else. 2 . It is like some other people and not like any other human being. First – from the zoological point of view, the physical characteristics of all humans are similar such as eyes, nose, ears, hands, legs etc. Therefore, every human being is similar to all other people in some or the other way. Second – there are some common behavior patterns in every society. Which a person adopts according to his choice. Thus everyone is like some other people. That is, equality is found in some people on the basis of similar behavior and work. Third – Every person has some special qualities, which are not like any other human being. This is the reason why differences are found in human personality. Due to the difference in the cultural environment, there is no similarity in the common qualities of people of two different cultures.

 

What is a political culture?

The term ‘political culture’ is used in the field of social science. It refers to historically based, widely shared beliefs, sentiments and values about the nature of political systems, which can serve as a link between citizens and government.

Different countries have different political cultures, which can help us understand how and why their governments are organized in a certain way, why democracies succeed or fail, or why some countries still have monarchies. Why are Understanding our own political culture can also provide clues to political ties, such as those we share with each other or our governments.

In the United States, we might be tempted to think of political culture in terms of our voting status as Democrat or Republican. However, it is important to understand that political culture differs from political ideology. The term ‘political ideology’ refers to a code of beliefs or ideas about governments and politics that may influence the way we vote or whether or not we support certain legislative actions.

For example, two people may share a political culture, but have different political ideologies. In other words, a right-wing conservative may be from the same political culture as a left-wing liberal. In other words, political culture is something we share, while political ideology is something we use to define ourselves and make political decisions.

Now let us have a brief look at some of the theories of political culture.

save timeline autoplay speed normal
video quiz course
232k views
principles
In 1963, two political scientists, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, published a study of the political cultures associated with five democratic countries: Germany, Italy, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to Almond and Verba, there are three basic types of political culture that can be used to explain why people do or do not participate in political processes.

In a narrow political culture like Mexico, citizens are mostly uninformed and ignorant of their government and take little interest in the political process. In a subjective political culture, such as those found in Germany and Italy, citizens are informed and aware of their government to some degree and sometimes participate in the political process. In a participatory political culture, as in the United Kingdom and the United States, citizens are informed and actively participate in the political process.

Other theories of political culture explore how political culture takes root and is transferred from one generation to the next through political socialization and includes Seymour Martin Lipset’s initial event theory, which focuses on the founding of a country. describes the long-lasting effects of major events that have occurred; Louis Hartz’s fragment theory, which explains the long-lasting effects of European colonialism on countries and societies; and Roger Inglehart’s post-materialism theory, which explains the long-lasting effects of childhood economic and social conditions.

Political culture is the set of attitudes, beliefs, and feelings that give order and meaning to a political process and that provide the underlying beliefs and rules that govern behavior in a political system. It encompasses both the political ideals and the operational norms of a polity. Political culture is thus the expression of the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics as a whole. A political culture is the product of both the collective history of a political system and the life history of the members of that system, and is thus a combination of public events and private experiences.

s equally inherent in them.

Political culture is a recent term that seeks to make more clear and systematic the understanding associated with longstanding concepts such as political ideology, national ethos and sentiment, national political psychology and core values of people. Political culture, embracing the political leanings of both leaders and citizens, is more inclusive than terms such as political style or operational code, which tend to focus on the behavior of elites. On the other hand, the term is more explicitly political and therefore more restrictive than concepts such as public opinion and national character.

The concept of political culture can be seen as a natural development in the development of behavioral approaches to political analysis, as it represents an attempt to apply to problems holistic or systemic analysis, which studies insights and types of knowledge. It was initially developed by Political behavior of individuals and small groups. [See Political behavior.]

More specifically, the concept of political culture was developed in response to a need to bridge the growing gap in behavioral approaches between the level of microanalysis, based on psychological interpretations of individual political behavior, and the level of macroanalysis. Common variables for political sociology. In this sense the concept attempts to integrate psychology and sociology in order to be able to apply both the revolutionary findings of modern depth psychology in dynamic political analysis and recent advances in sociological techniques for measuring attitudes in collectivist societies. Within the discipline of political science, the emphasis on political culture indicates an attempt to apply an essentially applied form of analysis to the study of traditional problems such as political ideology, legitimacy, sovereignty, nationhood, and the rule of law. (For a theoretical analysis of the concept see Verba in Pye & Verba 1965, pp. 512–560.)

Political Culture and Socialization
Intellectual curiosity about the roots of national differences in politics dates back to the writings of Herodotus, and perhaps no recent study has achieved the richness of understanding such classic studies of the national temperament as those by Tocqueville, Bryce, and Emerson. But the dynamic intellectual tradition that inspired the study of political culture comes almost entirely from national character studies and psychocultural analysis of the 1930s and 1940s. Benedict (1934; 1946), Mead (1942; 1953), Gorer (1948; 1953; 1955), Fromm (1941), and Klineberg (1950) all used findings from psychoanalysis and cultural anthropology to gain a deeper understanding of national sought to provide. political behaviour. A major objection to these studies was their failure to recognize that the political sphere constitutes a distinct subculture with its own rules of conduct and its own distinctive processes of socialization. The practice of going straight from the child training stage to the level of national decision making meant that important intervention processes were neglected.

stages of socialization
The notion of political culture attempts to retain the psychological subtleties of earlier national character studies by paying due attention to the specific characteristics of the political sphere and to the intermediate stages of personality development between childhood and entry into adult political life. This is achieved by envisioning two stages of socialization; The first is an entry into general culture, while the second is a more specific, and usually more explicit, socialization to political life. In some forms of analysis it is useful to distinguish an additional step, political recruitment for particular roles within the political process. These steps are not necessarily sequential; Explicit political socialization can occur at a very early point, when the individual is still being socialized into his or her general culture.

Basic to the analysis of political cultures is the investigation of the various stages of socialization and the relationship between the final political socialization process and the dominant patterns of behavior in the political culture. In some systems there is a fundamental correspondence between the content of the various socialization processes.

and the current political culture. Such parallelism historically existed in the traditional political cultures of Japan, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Turkey (see Ward, pp. 27–82; Binder, pp. 396–449; Levin, pp. 245–281; Rustow, pp. 171-). 198 in Pie and Verba 1965). In such systems the values and attitudes internalized during the process of general socialization are more explicitly tailored to and reinforced by the attitudes and values emphasized in the process of political socialization; And the combined socialization process in turn tends to support and reinforce the current political culture. Under such circumstances there are possibilities for the continued existence of a coherent and relatively stable political culture.

However, it is also possible to distinguish different types of tensions and instabilities in political cultures according to the types of contradictions and inconsistencies in socialization processes and between these processes and the requirements of the political system. The most dramatic examples of such contradictions are found in revolutionary systems.

are found in countries in which the political culture of the elite is either shaped by a highly explicit and non-cultivated ideology or is the product of exogenous historical experience such as colonialism.

In some societies the primary process of socialization gives people a highly optimistic outlook on life and a deep sense of basic trust in human relations, while later stages of political socialization emphasize cynicism and skepticism of political actors. As a result, the political culture is characterized by a critical and disdainful view of existing political practices, but also colored by a strong utopian belief that reform can ultimately remedy the existing situation. Cynicism is thus balanced by the hope that reform is worth seeking. Cynicism appears to have been the character that inspired the muckraking tradition in American politics. The same dynamic seems to be at work in the political culture of the Philippines (Grossholtz 1964). In other societies, mistrust of contemporary political institutions and individuals is preceded by an earlier socialization process that instills a sense of fundamental mistrust and suspicion, resulting in people having little faith in reformist solutions and feeling that there is no need for political reform. It requires catastrophic changes. Burma provides an example of this process (see Convention … 1963).

continuity and discontinuity
The problems of continuity and discontinuity also require an analysis of the relationship between socialization and political culture. Historical events within a political system may demand changes in political culture that are incompatible with past or current socialization processes. Tension is possible in all dynamic political systems because the process of socialization cannot change as fast as the political process. This problem becomes acute when there is a sudden change in the international status of a society, for example, when a colony gains independence. One of the fundamental sources of instability and ineffectiveness in many newly developing countries lies in the difference between the emphasis of the socialization processes that produced the various strata of contemporary society and the attitudes needed to govern the national political process.

socialization agent
The process of political socialization operates in the context of various socialization agents in shaping political culture. Some of these agents, such as the family, are prominent in the early stages of the socialization process, and thus their effects are most closely related to personality characteristics fundamental to political culture. Other socialization agents, such as the mass media and political parties, become critical at later stages and are thus primarily involved in influencing the more cognitive aspects of political culture.

Current research on different political cultures has sought to determine the relative importance of different types of social agents in shaping different aspects of political culture and, thus, evaluate the relationship between a society’s sociological structure and the political process. For example, the family, according to Hyman (1959), is particularly powerful in determining party loyalty in the United States, while formal education is most important in generating commitment to democratic values, according to Almond and Verba (1963). Is. In the study of transitional political systems of underdeveloped countries, it has become clear that the deeply political nature of these societies is often the result of a partisan role against non-party or constitutional agents of socialization. It is notable that the trend towards one-party systems in sub-Saharan Africa is closely related to the fact that nationalist parties were the only strong agency for the socialization of most people.

newly politically aware masses (Hanna 1964). When non-partisan or politically neutral socializing agents are weak, social life becomes highly politicized, and there is likely to be little appreciation for such fundamental constitutional institutions as a fair bureaucracy and the rule of law. . The study of the process of nation-building in societies in which the mass media are weak and cannot provide an objective view of national events suggests that constitutional development may not be easily institutionalized under such circumstances (see Convention … 1963). ; Schramm 1964). This connection between the process of socialization and the ensuing political culture explains some of the fundamental difficulties in building national institutions in countries where popular political consciousness was driven by highly partisan and ideologically oriented independence movements.

elite and collective subcultures
In all societies there are inevitably some differences between the political orientations of those who have decision-making responsibility and those who are merely observers or participating citizens. A national political culture thus includes both an elite subculture and a collectivist subculture, and the relationship between the two is another important factor determining the performance of a political system. concerned with the legitimacy of government, the freedom and limits of leadership, the limits of political mobilization and

Determines important matters such as the basis for the possibilities of an orderly transfer of power.

Large-scale subcultures are rarely homogeneous, as there are usually significant differences between the politically attentive strata of society and those elements that are less concerned with politics. In some cases the mass political culture is highly heterogeneous and sharp differences exist according to region, social and economic class, or ethnic community. In such cases, the pattern of relationships between the various subcultures becomes an important factor in describing the wider political culture.

In analyzing the extent to which elite and mass subcultures have complementary sets of values, it is useful to distinguish between systems in which recruitment into the elite subculture usually precedes socialization into the mass subculture and systems in which socialization The channels are completely different. In most stable, modern democratic societies the general pattern is for individuals to be socialized into mass culture before being admitted to prominent political roles, and thus elites, despite acquiring highly specialized skills and political knowledge, are unable to appreciate basic values. Can of citizens as a whole. It does not follow, of course, that in all cases people who grow out of collective subcultures will remain sympathetic or reactive to their background; In fact, leadership elements in transitional societies often harbor deep resentment towards those with whom they were once associated.

In most traditional, and many transitional systems, those destined for leadership positions have vastly different career lines, receive vastly different forms of education, and have vastly different social experiences from the mass of their followers. Even the legitimacy of leaders in many transitional societies rests on the popular belief that they are inherently different from others at birth.

A fundamental problem in the dynamics of political cultures is related to the unequal change in the socialization patterns of the two subcultures. Serious difficulties for the political system can arise when rulers find that the mass subculture is no longer amenable to traditional leadership patterns, but they themselves have little skill in more modern methods of governance. Or the opposite problem may arise when the elite subculture has been significantly replaced by new patterns of elite socialization but mass culture has remained largely unchanged. Leaders in such circumstances may be impatient for change, and in displaying little understanding and even outright disdain for the essential qualities of mass culture, they may resent the populace, who may feel that their leaders have The sense of propriety of governance has been lost. ,

content of political cultures
The content of political cultures is largely unique to each particular society. Studies of different political cultures therefore emphasize different themes, and the ultimate test of the usefulness of the theory of political culture will depend on its value for comparative and generalized analysis. There has already been promising pioneering progress in comparative analysis in which similar properties of political cultures are linked to a common type of political system. For example, Almond and Verba (1963) have identified a “civic culture” that underlies democratic political systems.

 

It is also possible to distinguish some universal dimensions of political cultures in terms of some inherent properties of both political systems and the processes of personality formation.
It is also possible to distinguish some universal dimensions of political cultures in terms of some inherent properties of both political systems and the processes of personality formation.
It is also possible to distinguish some universal dimensions of political cultures in terms of some inherent properties of both political systems and the processes of personality formation.
It is also possible to distinguish some universal dimensions of political cultures in terms of some inherent properties of both political systems and the processes of personality formation.
It is also possible to distinguish some universal dimensions of political cultures in terms of some inherent properties of both political systems and the processes of personality formation.
Nathan Leites (1951; 1953) has demonstrated the value of characteristically analyzing the political behavior of elites. It is likely that further research will reveal that certain syndromes appear in political cultures that are related either to recognized patterns of personality development or to general patterns of historical development, or to both. At this level of knowledge it is only possible to suggest some universal problems or themes that all political cultures must deal with in one way or another.

scope and functions of politics
Each political culture must define for its society the generally accepted scope or boundaries of politics and the legitimate boundaries between the public and private spheres of life. definition of accepted participants in the political process in scope, range of permissible issues, and overall political process

or the recognized functions of both and includes separate agencies or decision-making domains that collectively constitute the political process.

The scope of participants is in most systems formally defined by citizenship requirements, but all systems generally have formal or informal limits on age, gender, social status, training, family connections, and so on that govern the recruitment process. Huh. ,

Similarly, in most political cultures some issues are considered outside the realm of politics or the jurisdiction of particular parts or agencies of the political process. The relationship of issues and functions can be highly specialized in the sense that particular issues are identified as the particular responsibility of particular forms of decision-making, such as electoral, parliamentary, bureaucratic, judicial, or technical expertise.

Democratic political cultures usually have a clear sense of the proper boundaries of political life, clear recognition of new issues as they arise, and some degree of respect for functional specialization in dealing with issues and for the relative autonomy of different domains. Political decision making In authoritarian cultures there are few established boundaries of the political sphere of activity, a clear knowledge that all issues can become political, and some respect for functional specialization but little for the autonomy of the various domains. Transitional systems usually do not have clearly accepted boundaries of political life, but the impotence of politics provides real boundaries: an expectation that all matters can be political, and little functional specialization in different areas of political decision-making. or autonomy. , [See Decision making, article on political aspects.]

concepts of power and authority
In providing concepts about the nature and qualities of power and authority, political cultures may differ according to (1) the basis on which power and authority are differentiated; (2) the methods by which one can be translated into the other; (3) the estimated extent of the efficacy of the power; (4) the elements or components of legitimate power, e.g., physical force, popular support, moral justification, legal sanctions, etc.; and (5) the degree of diffusion of centralization of power and authority. [See Authority; Power.]

The process of legitimizing power has a significant impact on the performance of a political system [see Legitimacy]. Legitimation usually involves preventing the use of potential power and limiting the range of actions of particular institutions and power holders. This has been especially true in Western political cultures and the development of American constitutional theory regarding the separation of powers. These restrictions of legitimacy sometimes take on an autocratic form, as a result of which no institution or political actor can act decisively and with full efficiency. In some political cultures the process of legitimizing power proceeds in the opposite direction, so that legitimacy is granted only to those who can and do act decisively and effectively. This is especially true in countries that have experienced periods of national humiliation as a result of weakness in international affairs. For example, the very effectiveness of the Chinese Communists has been one of the most important factors in giving the Peking government a sense of legitimacy in the eyes of its subjects. Democratic political cultures often have ambiguous feelings about the need to control all power and the need for legitimate power to be effective. It is often difficult to legitimize any form of power in transitional societies because it all seems to have great difficulty being effective.

In all political cultures, concepts about power and authority

The fundamental role of parental authority in the early socialization process has deep psychological dimensions. The skills children develop in coping with family authority provide a lasting foundation for adult styles of coping with authority. Thus, in some cultures it is widely believed that authority can best be handled by emphasizing issues of justice and fairness in a spirit of friendly informality, while in others it is best to win favor by presenting the style full and insulting. is of.

political integration
In different ways and to varying degrees, political cultures provide people with a sense of national identity and a sense of belonging to particular political systems. Fundamental to the problems of political system integration is establishing a sense of national identity, and the problem of national identity is in turn a function of the process by which individuals realize their sense of separate identity. This basic connection between national identity and personal identity provides a fundamental link between the process of socialization and the integration of the political process [see Identity, Political].

Integration also involves the relationship of the various structures involved in the political process, and is therefore related to the problems of specialization of functions between decision-making groups discussed above.

A third aspect of integration relates to the manner in which different subcommunities, ethnic or regional groups, or

These subcultures are related to each other. Political cultures differ in terms of allowing such minorities to maintain their distinct identities while meeting the expected standards of integration. [See integration.]

Politics and the position of politicians
In traditional societies, religion, war, and government provided elites, and the art of statecraft was seen as having a sacred origin. Leadership had high visibility, and those who participated in decision-making could claim glory and greatness. Modern political cultures, reflecting the increasing division of labor and the rise of secular ideas, accept politics as only one occupation among many and minimize the role of the politician, while extolling the supreme importance of the state and the nation. .

A political culture should establish generally acceptable rewards and punishments for active political participation. The high status of leaders in traditional societies also meant that those in power could legitimately expect high material rewards. With the emergence of other professions and the contraction of the political sphere, material rewards for those entering public life decreased, and they were expected to make personal sacrifices to perform public services. Political culture also controls the quality of those recruited, in controlling the accepted balance between rewards and punishments for those entering public life. In democratic political cultures the desire to usurp power generates the requirement that power-seekers have no self-interest, but only serve the interests of others; And the suspicion that this is not always the case undermines popular respect for politicians as a class. Political cultures provide another basis for rewarding and controlling those seeking power, in creating distinctions between statesmen and politicians [see Political recruitment and careers].

performance appraisal
All political cultures have standards for evaluating the effectiveness and competence of those who play a particular role in the political system. Such standards typically depend on popular ideas about how national and community-wide problems should best be solved. In traditional cultures, problem solving was usually linked to the correct performance of rituals, and therefore evaluation of performance was heavily influenced by the skill displayed in ceremonies. Although modern political cultures recognize the central place of rationality in problem solving, what is accepted as being rational varies greatly between cultures. Judgments about skill in leadership are also influenced by the extent to which a society values the personal magnetism of leadership or the abilities of technical experts and specialists. Changes occur in the evaluative dimension of political cultures as new skills and occupations are recognized as relevant to solving national problems.

The evaluative aspect of political cultures must also reflect the inescapable fact that politics is concerned with future contingencies that are beyond the limits of ready prediction. Every political culture must provide some basis of belief in the predictive powers of acceptable leaders. Traditionally, this belief was usually placed in the mystical and charismatic powers of personal leadership. In other cultures either divinely or secularly inspired principles are believed to be endowed with all the necessary providence.

Active Powers. In still other cultures the sheer prevalence and essentially esoteric operation of bureaucracy and the complex machinery of government is enough to generate a popular belief that those in power have a grasp of the future. The ultimate test of leadership in all cases is the skill of maintaining popular confidence in the leader’s ability to deal with all possible contingencies. [See articles on leadership, political aspects.]

emotional dimension of politics
Perhaps no other social activity touches on such a wide range of emotions as politics, and every political culture attempts to regulate the expression of acceptable public emotions and to deny legitimacy to others. Above all, since politics invariably involves the struggle for power, personal aggression is a basic emotion that all political cultures must deal with by legitimizing some form of aggression and by defining the spheres and times in which it can be expressed. Is allowed.

This function of political cultures is related to but goes beyond the need to provide integration and a sense of collective identity to the system. This includes the extent to which the underlying play of power and judgment is either emphasized or silenced. Essentially, the affective dimension of political culture is determined by the ways in which people are legitimately allowed to realize mental satisfaction from active participation in politics.

The coherence and stability of political cultures is continually threatened by the fact that people may turn to political action for highly personal and psychologically individualistic reasons, and thus seek satisfactions that

Completely unrelated to social or collective actions of politics. Such people may have little interest in the public goals or objectives of the movements they support, as their satisfaction comes primarily from a sense of involvement and the drama of participation. Harold Lasswell first pointed out this phenomenon (1930; 1948), which Almond also observed in communist movements (1954).

balance between cooperation and competition
Politics rests on collective action, which in turn depends on a basic sense of trust and the ability to cooperate. Also politics involves conflict and competition. Cultures must therefore strike an acceptable balance between cooperation and competition, and the ability of political cultures to manage this problem usually depends on how the basic socialization process handles the problems of mutual trust and mistrust in personality development. Is. [see conflict; help.]

An essential condition for building complex human organizations is a strong sense of human trust. Where the base culture instills a deep sense of mistrust and suspicion among people, collective action becomes difficult, and competition gets out of hand and becomes seriously disruptive. On the other hand, general cultures that emphasize building personal trust may have to be balanced by political cultures that emphasize the need for skepticism in the management of public institutions. For example, it has been suggested that basic socialization processes in the United States emphasize a particularly high level of basic trust in human relationships, but American political culture tends to distrust institutions, scrutinize their powers, and demand strict Emphasizes the need to Accountability of all government officials. In many transitional societies we find the opposite pattern, in which the process of socialization creates a deep distrust of human relations, while at the same time people are asked to place complete and unquestioning trust in their public institutions. The pattern has been observed in India (Carstère 1957), Ceylon (Wriggins 1960), Burma (see convention … 1963), and Italy (Banfield 1958).

The future of the theory of political culture
As the foregoing discussion shows, there is a growing body of proposals that seek to link aggregate and individual behavior in various political systems, so that it is now possible to speak of the development of a theory of political culture. However, it is also worth noting several criticisms of this theory which characterize its current early stage of development.

It has been suggested that the concept represents little more than a new label for old ideas. To a degree, this is a valid observation, but one that ignores the central aim of the theory, which is to find a new way to link psychological theory to the performance of the total political system.

At present only the term “political culture” is capable of generating quick intuitive understanding, so that people often feel that without further and clear definition they can appreciate its meaning and use it freely. However, the ease with which the term can be used means that there is considerable danger that it may be employed as a “missing link” to fill in anything that cannot be explained in political analysis. Will be done.

 

The repetition is especially great in precisely the area that is now most important for the future development of the theory – the relationship between political culture and political structures or institutions. If the concept of political culture is to be used effectively, it needs to be complemented with structural analysis, but the difficulty is that political structures can be viewed on the one hand as products reflecting political culture, on the other. while on the other hand they are important “charities” that shape the political culture.

These are problems that must be conquered if the theory of political culture is to fulfill its initial promise. Chances are excellent that current research will set aside most of these objections and greatly advance the usefulness of a political culture theory. Recent systematic comparative research, based on survey methods, promises to further clarify the relationship between political socialization processes and several dimensions of political culture. In identifying the components of a democratic political culture, Gabriel A. The work of Almond and Sidney Verba has already inspired new efforts to evaluate the factors influencing democratic development around the world. In the 1960s, Verba was directing a study applying some of the concepts of The Civic Culture to India, Japan, Nigeria and Mexico. Basic concepts of civic culture have been used in the analysis of Japanese development by Ward, by Scott for Mexico, by Rose for England, and by Barghorn for the Soviet Union (see pp. 83–129; 330–395; 450 –511) Pai and Verba 1965). Other research on political and psychological barriers to economic growth is suggesting more important dimensions to modern political culture, whether democratic or not (McClelland 1961; Hagen 1962).