Praxis pp 167-185 | Cite as

Culture As a Bridge Between Utopia and Reality

  • Zagorka Golubović
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 36)

Abstract

Defined as a process of humanization of man and his world — as an image of a more human world — culture always stands midway between conception and realization, between the ideal and reality, between the new and the already attained.

Keywords

Stratification Sine Kelly Folk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    R. Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1964), p. 21. [Orig. ed. 1945].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Mead, ‘Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive Peoples,’ (1937)Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    Ford C. S., ‘Culture and Human Behaviour,’ (1942), both quotations from A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, eds. Culture, A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1963), pp. 90.Google Scholar
  4. 2b.
    Ford C. S., ‘Culture and Human Behaviour,’ (1942), both quotations from A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, eds. Culture, A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1963), pp. 107.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    C. Kluckhohn and W. Kelly, ‘The Concept of Culture,’ in R. Linton, ed. The Science of Man in the World Crisis (Columbia University Press, New York, 1945), pp. 81–82.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    [This phrase achieved wide recognition in, among other sources, C. Kluckhohn, Mirror For Man (McGraw Hill, New York, 1949) - Ed.]Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    E. B. Tylor, ‘Primitive Culture,’ (1871), quotation from Kroeber and Kluckhohn, Culture, op cit., p. 81.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    In his Culture as Praxis, Zygmunt Bauman writes: “Culture constitutes the human experience in the sense that it constantly brings into relief the discord between the ideal and the real, that it makes reality meaningful by exposing its limitations and imperfections, that it invariantly melts and blends knowledge and interest; or rather culture is a mode of human praxis in which knowledge and interest are one.” Z. Bauman, Culture as Praxis (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973), p. 173.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Cf. the full discussion in Ibid. Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    C. Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1958), pp. 78Google Scholar
  11. 8a.
    C. Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1958), pp. 94Google Scholar
  12. 8b.
    C. Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1958), pp. 326–327Google Scholar
  13. 8c.
    C. Levi-Strauss, The Scope of Anthropology (Cape Editions, London, 1967), p. 20.Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    [See Bauman, Ibid., passim - Ed.]Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    J. P. Sartre, ‘Entretien sur l’Anthropologie’, Cahiers de Philosophie 2–3 (février, 1966), 3–12.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    H. Léfèbvre, ‘Réflexion sur le structuralisme et l’histoire’, Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie 35 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    H. Marcuse, ‘Bemerkungen zu einer Neubestimmung der Kultur’ in H. Marcuse, Kultur und Gesellschaft, Vol. II (Suhrkamp Verlag, 1966), p. 148;Google Scholar
  18. 12a.
    D. Bidney, ‘The Concept of Cultural Crisis’, American Anthropologist 48 (1946), 535–546.Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, ed. S. Ryazanskaya (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964), p. 38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zagorka Golubović

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations