I find it interesting that this world history course begins with a unit reflecting on culture. I don't recall any history course that I have taken ever engaging in anthropological or value-laden discussion of culture and cultural relativity at any point—much less as a point of beginning. Most of the "world" history that I have seen in textbooks and courses, in contrast, has a definite point of view situated within U.S. or Euro-American culture.
Matthew Arnold would feel right at home with the history courses I have seen—like his notion of high culture, they assume there is a correct or good or valuable POV, and devalue everything else. I can imagine him arguing that there is History and then there are little, second-rate histories that don't really deserve the name.
Not that I see the beginning as entirely unproblematic. The assertion (in the baseline essay) that "a 'cultural template' can be in place prior to the birth of an individual person" seems, at the least, susceptible to misinterpretation. I hope that the author means that the cultural template is situated in the society-as-a-whole, not that it is somehow imprinted on the individual.
What I liked best was Williams' assertion that culture is "always both traditional and creative." Here's an anthropologist who can see the art in Grandma's quilts as well as in the Weisman.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment