Culture

Culture is a concept based on a term first used in classical antiquity by the Roman orator
Cicero: "cultura animi" (cultivation of the soul). This non-agricultural use of the term "culture"
re-appeared in modern Europe in the 17th century referring to the betterment or refinement
of individuals, especially through education. During the 18th and 19th century it came to
refer more frequently to the common reference points of whole peoples, and discussion of
the term was often connected to national aspirations or ideals. Some scientists such
as Edward Tylorused the term "culture" to refer to a universal human capacity.
In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology,
encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be directly attributed to genetic
inheritance. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings:
1. the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and
to act imaginatively and creatively; and
2. the distinct ways that people, who live differently, classified and represented their
experiences, and acted creatively.[2]
Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are
characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological
inheritance.[3]
Distinctions are currently made between the physical artifacts created by a society, its
so-called material culture, and everything else,[4]the intangibles such as language, customs,
etc. that are the main referent of the term "culture".

Cultural relativism
Cultural relativism is an opinion that was
establishedas axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boasin the first few decades of
the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in
1887: "...civilization is not something absolute, but ... Is relative, and ... Our ideas and
conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes." However, Boas did not coin the
term.
The first use of the term recorded in the Dictionary was by philosopher and social
theorist Alain Locke in 1924 to describe Robert Lowie's "extreme cultural relativism", found in
the latter's 1917 book Culture and Ethnology. The term became common among
anthropologists after Boas' death in 1942, to express their synthesis of a number of ideas
Boas had developed. Boas believed that the sweep of cultures, to be found in connection
with any sub species, is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between
cultures and races. Cultural relativism involves specific epistemologicaland methodological
claims. Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of
debate. This principle should not be confused with moral relativism.

Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is a driving force of development, not only in respect of economic
growth, but also as a means of leading a more fulfilling intellectual, emotional, moral and
spiritual life. This is captured in the seven culture conventions, which provide a solid basis
for the promotion of cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is thus an asset that is
indispensable for poverty reduction and the achievement of sustainable development.

At the same time, acceptance and recognition of cultural diversity in particular

through innovative use of media and ICTs are conducive to dialogue among civilizations
and cultures, respect and mutual understanding.
E.B. Taylors Ideas on Culture
Anthropologist Edward B. Taylor offered a broad definition, stating that culture is that
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. However, culture has also
been described as one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language.
There is no shortage of proposed definitions150, according to one study. The definition of
culture remains elusive and contested. Or as another scholar put it, culture is one of the
[most] basic theoretical sociological terms, and yet it is inherently indefinable. Both in
terms of its specific meaning and broad content, the understanding of culture has defied
consensus among sociologists. The definitional ambiguity stems at least in part from the
difficulties in defining meaningful boundaries and deciding what resources to
include/exclude. Culture captures the contextual, contingent, and social/relational aspects of
resources that are resources vis--vis theirmeaning to and among people. As Benkler
suggests, Culture is a frame of meaning from within which we must inevitably function and
speak to each other, and whose terms, constraints, and affordances we always negotiate.
There is no point outside of culture from which to do otherwise. In a sense, culture itself is
an environmental concept. Yet, because culture is (socially) constructed, it must be
understood, if not defined, as a reflection of that which we want, or as John Breen puts it,
culture can be understood as a societys answer to a series of fundamental questions
about what it values.
ACCULTURATION and ETHNOCENTRISM
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is
centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. The
ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic
group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. These
ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.
While acculturation is a process in which members of one cultural group adopt the beliefs
and behaviors of another group. Although acculturation is usually in the direction of a
minority group adopting habits and language patterns of the dominant group, acculturation
can be reciprocal--that is, the dominant group also adopts patterns typical of the minority
group. Assimilation of one cultural group into another may be evidenced by changes in
language preference, adoption of common attitudes and values, members hip in common
social groups and institutions, and loss of separate political or ethnic identification

Teacher are the Agents of Change

The first and foremost responsibility of the teacher is in relation to his students. His job
cannot remain confined to delivering a set of lectures or mere "coverage of syllabus." What
is called is a revolution in education -"changes in objectives, in content, in teaching methods,
in programmes, in-the size and composition of the students' body, in the selection and
professional preparation of teachers and organisation. "The primary objective should be to
treat each individual student as an end in himself and to give him the widest opportunity to
develop his skills, abilities, and potentialities to the full.
He should go out the institution with a sense of values and purpose and fully 'equipped
to pay his role not only as a professionally trained person', but as an enlightened and
dedicated member of the society, committed to the values of democracy, secularism and
socialism.
The teacher has an important role to play in the acceptance and adoption of various
educational innovations, e.g. restructuring of courses, examination reforms, practical
orientation to courses, making studies relevant and so on. In the past, many of the reforms
reached a dead end because of the apathy of the teacher.
The teacher should also accept his responsibility in the realization of our social
objective, which implies that education should be related to the life, needs and aspirations of
the people.

Submitted to:
Mr. Romeo Pantaleon

Submitted by:

Ma. Aive R. Legaspi BEED 3-a