Culture's material and nonmaterial aspects interact with one another, thereby altering culture over time and influencing people's behavior and thoughts.

Definition:

A society's culture is the collection of shared beliefs, values, practices, material goods, and means of communication. The sociologists Horton and Hunt offer the following significant definitions of culture: "Culture is everything that is socially shared and learned by the members of a society."

According to Tylor, "It is that complex whole including beliefs, art, region, values, norms, ideas, law, taught, knowledge, custom, and other capabilities acquired by a man as a member of a society" is what the term "it is" refers to.

Characteristics and Features of Culture:

1. Culture is learned

Culture is learned socially by people in a society, not biologically. It is not a trait that comes naturally to humans; rather, it is something that he learns through his interactions with other people, such as how to drink, eat, dress, walk, behave, and read.

2. Culture is social

Because it is the result of society rather than an individual phenomenon. It grows in society through interactions with other people. It is shared by the men of society. No man can acquire it alone. Only among men is man a man. In a social setting, it helps people grow as individuals. The deprivation of human qualities occurs when a man is excluded from his company.

3. Culture is something that is shared.

It is nothing that an individual can pass through but is shared by territory residents. For instance, customs, customs, values, and convictions are completely shared by man in a social circumstance. Everyone adheres to these beliefs and practices in equal measure.

4. Culture can be passed on

Culture can be passed on from one generation to the next. Cultural traits are passed down from one generation to the next by parents to their offspring. Language, not genes, is the channel through which it is passed on. Language transmits cultural traits from generation to generation through communication.

5. Culture is a process that never stops

It is analogous to a stream that flows over centuries from one generation to the next. The human race's memory is culture.

6. Culture is cumulative

Culture does not occur once every month or year. It's the ongoing process of incorporating new cultural characteristics. Because culture is accumulative and combines the appropriate cultural traits, many cultural traits are taken from outside the culture and absorbed by the culture that adopts them.

7. Culture is integrated

All aspects of culture are connected to one another. The integration of its various components is the process by which culture evolves. For instance, morality, customs, beliefs, and religion are all intertwined with the value system.

8. Culture is evolving

It stays changing yet not static. Social interaction goes through changes. However, at different rates depending on society and generation.

9. Culture is different in every society.

Each society has its own culture and way of being. It doesn't happen in the same way everywhere; it happens differently in different societies. Each society and culture are distinct in and of itself. For instance, every society has distinct values, traditions, ideologies, religions, beliefs, and practices. However, the manners of eating, drinking, addressing others, greeting them, and dressing, among other things, vary from one social setting to another simultaneously.

10. Culture is adaptable

Culture adapts to physical world conditions that change. It intervenes in the natural environment and protects humans from all hazards and natural disasters, such as the responsibility of our homes to provide us with shelter and safety from storms and heavy rain.

11. Culture is satisfying

Because it provides every opportunity to satisfy one's needs and desires. These requirements might be natural or social yet Fulfilling them is mindful. Our desires, such as status, fame, money, sex, and so on, are all examples of needs that are met in accordance with cultural practices. Examples of needs include food, shelter, and clothing. In point of fact, it is defined as the means by which humans satisfy their needs.

Concept of culture

Green Land | March 30, 2023 | 0 comments

Culture's material and nonmaterial aspects interact with one another, thereby altering culture over time and influencing people's behavior and thoughts.

Definition:

A society's culture is the collection of shared beliefs, values, practices, material goods, and means of communication. The sociologists Horton and Hunt offer the following significant definitions of culture: "Culture is everything that is socially shared and learned by the members of a society."

According to Tylor, "It is that complex whole including beliefs, art, region, values, norms, ideas, law, taught, knowledge, custom, and other capabilities acquired by a man as a member of a society" is what the term "it is" refers to.

Characteristics and Features of Culture:

1. Culture is learned

Culture is learned socially by people in a society, not biologically. It is not a trait that comes naturally to humans; rather, it is something that he learns through his interactions with other people, such as how to drink, eat, dress, walk, behave, and read.

2. Culture is social

Because it is the result of society rather than an individual phenomenon. It grows in society through interactions with other people. It is shared by the men of society. No man can acquire it alone. Only among men is man a man. In a social setting, it helps people grow as individuals. The deprivation of human qualities occurs when a man is excluded from his company.

3. Culture is something that is shared.

It is nothing that an individual can pass through but is shared by territory residents. For instance, customs, customs, values, and convictions are completely shared by man in a social circumstance. Everyone adheres to these beliefs and practices in equal measure.

4. Culture can be passed on

Culture can be passed on from one generation to the next. Cultural traits are passed down from one generation to the next by parents to their offspring. Language, not genes, is the channel through which it is passed on. Language transmits cultural traits from generation to generation through communication.

5. Culture is a process that never stops

It is analogous to a stream that flows over centuries from one generation to the next. The human race's memory is culture.

6. Culture is cumulative

Culture does not occur once every month or year. It's the ongoing process of incorporating new cultural characteristics. Because culture is accumulative and combines the appropriate cultural traits, many cultural traits are taken from outside the culture and absorbed by the culture that adopts them.

7. Culture is integrated

All aspects of culture are connected to one another. The integration of its various components is the process by which culture evolves. For instance, morality, customs, beliefs, and religion are all intertwined with the value system.

8. Culture is evolving

It stays changing yet not static. Social interaction goes through changes. However, at different rates depending on society and generation.

9. Culture is different in every society.

Each society has its own culture and way of being. It doesn't happen in the same way everywhere; it happens differently in different societies. Each society and culture are distinct in and of itself. For instance, every society has distinct values, traditions, ideologies, religions, beliefs, and practices. However, the manners of eating, drinking, addressing others, greeting them, and dressing, among other things, vary from one social setting to another simultaneously.

10. Culture is adaptable

Culture adapts to physical world conditions that change. It intervenes in the natural environment and protects humans from all hazards and natural disasters, such as the responsibility of our homes to provide us with shelter and safety from storms and heavy rain.

11. Culture is satisfying

Because it provides every opportunity to satisfy one's needs and desires. These requirements might be natural or social yet Fulfilling them is mindful. Our desires, such as status, fame, money, sex, and so on, are all examples of needs that are met in accordance with cultural practices. Examples of needs include food, shelter, and clothing. In point of fact, it is defined as the means by which humans satisfy their needs.

Critical Theory , Cultural Reader

Roland Barthes, a French literary theorist, wrote the influential essay "The Death of the Author" in 1968. But what exactly does "the death of the author" mean to Barthes? Many English departments, especially in the United States, adopted Barthes' ideas (along with those of other thinkers like Jacques Derrida) in the 1970s and 1980s, which was crucial to the development of poststructuralist literary theory.

In this essay, let's take a closer look at Barthes' argument. Before moving on to our summary and analysis of "The Death of the Author," you can read it here.

'The death of the author': summary

Barthes begins "The Death of the Author" with a quote from Honore de Balzac's Sarrasine novel as an illustration. Barthes asks us who "speaks" those words in a passage from the book: the novel's protagonist, or Balzac himself? If it is Balzac, does he speak on his own behalf or on behalf of humanity as a whole?

The point made by Barthes is that we cannot know. He boldly declares that writing is "the destruction of every voice." Writing is actually a negative, a void in which we do not know who is speaking or writing, rather than a creative or positive force.

In point of fact, our obsession with "the author" is a curiously modern phenomenon that can be traced back specifically to the Renaissance and the growth of the concept of "the individual." Barthes points out that a lot of literary criticism still views the author as an individual who created a particular work. As a result, we discuss how we can identify Baudelaire as the man in his novels. For Barthes, however, this search for the literary text's definitive origin or source is a wild goose chase.

He makes the point that some writers, like the French poet Stéphane Mallarmé from the nineteenth century, have tried to remind us through their works that language speaks to us, not the author. The writer ought to compose with a specific generic quality: In order to permit the writing of the work, the author suppresses their personality.

Barthes begins by capitalizing the term "the Author" as if to draw a parallel with a higher entity like God. This can help us see the relationship between the writer and the text in new ways. According to conventional thinking, the author is analogous to a parent and conceives the text rather than a child. Thus, the author exists prior to the literary work, whether it be a novel, poem, or play.

However, according to Barthes' radical new perspective on the relationship between the two, the writer and the text are born simultaneously. This is because whenever we read a literary work, we are interacting with the author right now rather than having to consider Shakespeare the Renaissance "author" four hundred years earlier. Shakespeare', as an author, exists now, at the time we read his chips away at the page in the twenty-first hundred years. Writing is a performative act that only takes place when we read the words on the page because that is the only time those words actually have meaning, and it is our interpretation that gives them meaning. All things being equal, then, at that point, we ought to consider not 'the Writer' yet 'the descriptor (Barthes utilized the French scripture in his unique paper, an uncommon French term which implies, basically, 'copyist'). A literary work should not be viewed as a secularized version of a sacred text in which the "Author" is a God who has given the text a single meaning.

Instead, many previous works of literature "blend and clash" in the literary text, incorporating a variety of influences, allusions, and quotations. In point of fact, Barthes asserts that "none of them" is "original." The text, on the other hand, is "a tissue of quotations."In his conclusion to "The Death of the Author," Barthes argues that imposing an author on a text actually restricts that text because we must view the literary work in relation to the author who wrote it. The person who created it must be the source of its meaning.

However, according to Barthes, writing is not like that: It is a "tissue of signs" that the reader only understands when they interact with them. We must abandon the notion that the author determines the meaning of the text in order for the reader to exist and have the meaning as a term. The meaning of a text lies "not in its origin but in its destination."

"The Death of the Author" analysis 

"The Death of the Author" makes a number of bold but significant assertions regarding the relationship that exists between an author and a literary work: that literary works are not original; and that one cannot simply look to the author of a piece of literature to determine its meaning. Instead, as readers, we are always trying to figure out what a text means.

We tend to think of writing as a creative art in the sense that it is the creation of a voice, not the "destroying of every voice." Additionally, the literary text lacks originality: Indeed, each text is merely a "tissue of quotations."This may appear to be Barthes overplaying his hand; surely literary works do not simply consist of a series of quotations from other works; rather, they contain original thoughts, phrases, and ideas. However, throughout "The Death of the Author," Barthes is interested in language, and it is true that the words used in every piece of literature, which are the raw materials through which meaning is created, are familiar and therefore not original: merely assembled in a slightly novel manner. (A notable exception is Lewis Carroll's nonsense works, of which "Jabberwocky" contains numerous original words; However, the fact that we recognize this poem as an exception rather than the typical method by which works of literature generate meaning is part of the fun.)

Although "The Death of the Author" was a bold and influential statement, it had many predecessors: For instance, T. S. Eliot had already put an emphasis on impersonality in his 1919 essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent," despite the fact that Eliot still considered the poet to be an important source of written text. Also, in the middle of the 20th century, New Criticism, especially in the United States, argued that the text had meaning on its own, independent of the author who wrote it and that looking for the authorial intention in literature was kind of red herring.

A compelling argument is made in "The Death of the Author" about how a piece of literature has meaning in relation to its readers rather than its author. We who read Dickens in the 21st century are not the same as Victorian readers of his works when he was alive, for instance. Over time, words acquire new resonance and acquire new meanings.

However, we might make a few points to challenge Barthes' argument. The first is probably the most obvious: that it shouldn't for even a moment need to be an 'either/or' and that the introduction of the peruser doesn't be guaranteed to must be at the expense of the demise of the creator. We can read Keats' poems and try to figure out what the young Romantic poet meant by what he wrote, and what he was trying to say with the work, and we can also acknowledge that "Ode on a Grecian Urn" has new resonances for us now, two centuries after it was written.

Second, treating a piece of literature as merely a "tissue of signs" runs the risk of placing it on the same level as a telephone directory or bus schedule. They are also not original and consist only of well-known words, names, and numbers. Great works of art, on the other hand, put these words and "signs" into new combinations — and there are virtually infinite of them — that can give us new meanings, whereas works of literature typically draw on familiar words and even phrases. Therefore, rather than a bipartite relationship, we might think of the author, the text, and the reader as a tripartite partnership: The meaning of the text is formed by all three elements.

If I give my students a poem and don't tell them who wrote it, they can try to figure out what it means by looking at the language; However, understanding the author and their context can reveal new meanings that are crucial to comprehending the text. The meaning of a poem shifts as soon as we know it was written by Sylvia Plath and can relate specifics about her life and death to our reading.

So, we do need to think about who wrote a text and how that might play a role in making sense of it. However, we also need to recognize, like Barthes does, that once a text is written and published, it is no longer just the property of the author who wrote it; instead, the people who read it are also the ones who make sense of it. 

The death of the author summary and analysis

Green Land | March 30, 2023 | 0 comments

Roland Barthes, a French literary theorist, wrote the influential essay "The Death of the Author" in 1968. But what exactly does "the death of the author" mean to Barthes? Many English departments, especially in the United States, adopted Barthes' ideas (along with those of other thinkers like Jacques Derrida) in the 1970s and 1980s, which was crucial to the development of poststructuralist literary theory.

In this essay, let's take a closer look at Barthes' argument. Before moving on to our summary and analysis of "The Death of the Author," you can read it here.

'The death of the author': summary

Barthes begins "The Death of the Author" with a quote from Honore de Balzac's Sarrasine novel as an illustration. Barthes asks us who "speaks" those words in a passage from the book: the novel's protagonist, or Balzac himself? If it is Balzac, does he speak on his own behalf or on behalf of humanity as a whole?

The point made by Barthes is that we cannot know. He boldly declares that writing is "the destruction of every voice." Writing is actually a negative, a void in which we do not know who is speaking or writing, rather than a creative or positive force.

In point of fact, our obsession with "the author" is a curiously modern phenomenon that can be traced back specifically to the Renaissance and the growth of the concept of "the individual." Barthes points out that a lot of literary criticism still views the author as an individual who created a particular work. As a result, we discuss how we can identify Baudelaire as the man in his novels. For Barthes, however, this search for the literary text's definitive origin or source is a wild goose chase.

He makes the point that some writers, like the French poet Stéphane Mallarmé from the nineteenth century, have tried to remind us through their works that language speaks to us, not the author. The writer ought to compose with a specific generic quality: In order to permit the writing of the work, the author suppresses their personality.

Barthes begins by capitalizing the term "the Author" as if to draw a parallel with a higher entity like God. This can help us see the relationship between the writer and the text in new ways. According to conventional thinking, the author is analogous to a parent and conceives the text rather than a child. Thus, the author exists prior to the literary work, whether it be a novel, poem, or play.

However, according to Barthes' radical new perspective on the relationship between the two, the writer and the text are born simultaneously. This is because whenever we read a literary work, we are interacting with the author right now rather than having to consider Shakespeare the Renaissance "author" four hundred years earlier. Shakespeare', as an author, exists now, at the time we read his chips away at the page in the twenty-first hundred years. Writing is a performative act that only takes place when we read the words on the page because that is the only time those words actually have meaning, and it is our interpretation that gives them meaning. All things being equal, then, at that point, we ought to consider not 'the Writer' yet 'the descriptor (Barthes utilized the French scripture in his unique paper, an uncommon French term which implies, basically, 'copyist'). A literary work should not be viewed as a secularized version of a sacred text in which the "Author" is a God who has given the text a single meaning.

Instead, many previous works of literature "blend and clash" in the literary text, incorporating a variety of influences, allusions, and quotations. In point of fact, Barthes asserts that "none of them" is "original." The text, on the other hand, is "a tissue of quotations."In his conclusion to "The Death of the Author," Barthes argues that imposing an author on a text actually restricts that text because we must view the literary work in relation to the author who wrote it. The person who created it must be the source of its meaning.

However, according to Barthes, writing is not like that: It is a "tissue of signs" that the reader only understands when they interact with them. We must abandon the notion that the author determines the meaning of the text in order for the reader to exist and have the meaning as a term. The meaning of a text lies "not in its origin but in its destination."

"The Death of the Author" analysis 

"The Death of the Author" makes a number of bold but significant assertions regarding the relationship that exists between an author and a literary work: that literary works are not original; and that one cannot simply look to the author of a piece of literature to determine its meaning. Instead, as readers, we are always trying to figure out what a text means.

We tend to think of writing as a creative art in the sense that it is the creation of a voice, not the "destroying of every voice." Additionally, the literary text lacks originality: Indeed, each text is merely a "tissue of quotations."This may appear to be Barthes overplaying his hand; surely literary works do not simply consist of a series of quotations from other works; rather, they contain original thoughts, phrases, and ideas. However, throughout "The Death of the Author," Barthes is interested in language, and it is true that the words used in every piece of literature, which are the raw materials through which meaning is created, are familiar and therefore not original: merely assembled in a slightly novel manner. (A notable exception is Lewis Carroll's nonsense works, of which "Jabberwocky" contains numerous original words; However, the fact that we recognize this poem as an exception rather than the typical method by which works of literature generate meaning is part of the fun.)

Although "The Death of the Author" was a bold and influential statement, it had many predecessors: For instance, T. S. Eliot had already put an emphasis on impersonality in his 1919 essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent," despite the fact that Eliot still considered the poet to be an important source of written text. Also, in the middle of the 20th century, New Criticism, especially in the United States, argued that the text had meaning on its own, independent of the author who wrote it and that looking for the authorial intention in literature was kind of red herring.

A compelling argument is made in "The Death of the Author" about how a piece of literature has meaning in relation to its readers rather than its author. We who read Dickens in the 21st century are not the same as Victorian readers of his works when he was alive, for instance. Over time, words acquire new resonance and acquire new meanings.

However, we might make a few points to challenge Barthes' argument. The first is probably the most obvious: that it shouldn't for even a moment need to be an 'either/or' and that the introduction of the peruser doesn't be guaranteed to must be at the expense of the demise of the creator. We can read Keats' poems and try to figure out what the young Romantic poet meant by what he wrote, and what he was trying to say with the work, and we can also acknowledge that "Ode on a Grecian Urn" has new resonances for us now, two centuries after it was written.

Second, treating a piece of literature as merely a "tissue of signs" runs the risk of placing it on the same level as a telephone directory or bus schedule. They are also not original and consist only of well-known words, names, and numbers. Great works of art, on the other hand, put these words and "signs" into new combinations — and there are virtually infinite of them — that can give us new meanings, whereas works of literature typically draw on familiar words and even phrases. Therefore, rather than a bipartite relationship, we might think of the author, the text, and the reader as a tripartite partnership: The meaning of the text is formed by all three elements.

If I give my students a poem and don't tell them who wrote it, they can try to figure out what it means by looking at the language; However, understanding the author and their context can reveal new meanings that are crucial to comprehending the text. The meaning of a poem shifts as soon as we know it was written by Sylvia Plath and can relate specifics about her life and death to our reading.

So, we do need to think about who wrote a text and how that might play a role in making sense of it. However, we also need to recognize, like Barthes does, that once a text is written and published, it is no longer just the property of the author who wrote it; instead, the people who read it are also the ones who make sense of it. 

Roland Barthes , The Death Of the Author

In a 1945 public lecture that was later published in 1946 as Existentialism Is a Humanism to define and introduce what Sartre considered to be the philosophical foundation of existentialism, the phrase "Existence precedes essence" was first mentioned. Subsequently, for Sartre, "presence goes before embodiment" doesn't just characterize and choose his own existential reasoning or his own variant of existentialism, yet in addition each reasoning or philosophizing that reports itself as existential. It became the most quoted, repeated, and cited definition of existentialism and any non-theistic existential thinking, despite Sartre's later efforts to separate himself and his thinking from this statement and its implications.

Since "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself" and "there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it," according to Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism, existence must precede essence. This indicates that humans first exist in the world and then define, decide, form, and determine themselves through their decisions, actions, thoughts, and choices. Humans then decide and choose themselves.

There is no God who determines us; There is no predetermined, established, or fixed nature, soul, essence, or self that shapes us and gives us our identity. We choose and decide ourselves uninhibitedly, ceaselessly, and totally; We are not constrained in any way, shape, or manner. Only we have the ability to give our existence any essence we choose.

By demonstrating that triangles and pens have particular, universal, and unchanging essences, functions, or forms that precede their concrete existences, Sartre clarifies and explains what he means when he says that "existence precedes essence." For instance, for something to be a triangle, it first needs to take on a particular shape that is necessary, essential, universal, and unchanging. Specifically, it must have three corners that add up to 180 degrees. What makes a triangle what it is—a triangle—is this form's universality, fixity, or essentiality.

In a similar vein, for something to be a pen, it needs to possess a certain fixed and determined essence within itself that makes writing possible and possible. That is, in order for something to be a pen and, as a result, write, it needs to have a consistent and universal form that makes writing possible; It has to have an essence that comes before its actual existence. On the other hand, according to Sartre, humans differ from triangles and pens in that they have their own unique way of being in the world. We first exist in the world, and then we choose our essence through our own unique way of being.

The beginning of Sartre's equation is Heidegger's Being and Time, where that's what heidegger says "the substance of Dasein lies in its presence". However, Heidegger distances himself in his Letter on Humanism from Sartre's understanding of existence, from Sartre's existentialism, and from existentialism itself, so there is a difference between what Heidegger and Sartre mean when they talk about existence and existing.

"Existence Precedes Essence" as a Reaction to the Conventional Qualification Among Embodiment and Presence

Sartre's recipe is a reaction to the customary differentiation in way of thinking among substance and presence, or at least, between the whatness of a thing and the simple presence of that thing. The essence, or whatness, of a thing in traditional philosophy is its universal and unchanging type, nature, form, or category. A thing's essence is its unchanging nature, which its very existence exemplifies. That which gives rise to and announces existence is the essence.

Since essences are the necessary, universal, and unchanging aspects of reality, they are traditionally positioned in opposition to existence. In contrast, existence is something that is fleeting, accidental, and contingent.

Therefore, in contrast to Plato and the entirety of Western metaphysical thought, Sartre asserts that human existence is not determined by a fixed, pre-established, or universal essence, self, or soul.

Because, according to Sartre, human beings do not possess any fixed or universal essence that could be in opposition to their existence, Sartre's formula is an attempt to disrupt this conventional juxtaposition of essences and existences. That is, humans are not governed and controlled by a predetermined nature or purpose. We have complete freedom to choose, create, and change who we are.

We are, in Sartre's view, our decisions, choices, and actions because existence comes first. The expression "existence precedes essence" refers to the fact that we decide and determine ourselves through our commitments, projects, and plans for the world. Prior to exiting, no essence can be known, determined, glimpsed, or decided. That is, we first exist on the planet and afterward characterize and conclude our own quintessence uninhibitedly as per the manner by which we pick we live. 

What Does It Mean to Say "Existence Precedes Essence"?

Green Land | March 29, 2023 | 0 comments

In a 1945 public lecture that was later published in 1946 as Existentialism Is a Humanism to define and introduce what Sartre considered to be the philosophical foundation of existentialism, the phrase "Existence precedes essence" was first mentioned. Subsequently, for Sartre, "presence goes before embodiment" doesn't just characterize and choose his own existential reasoning or his own variant of existentialism, yet in addition each reasoning or philosophizing that reports itself as existential. It became the most quoted, repeated, and cited definition of existentialism and any non-theistic existential thinking, despite Sartre's later efforts to separate himself and his thinking from this statement and its implications.

Since "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself" and "there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it," according to Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism, existence must precede essence. This indicates that humans first exist in the world and then define, decide, form, and determine themselves through their decisions, actions, thoughts, and choices. Humans then decide and choose themselves.

There is no God who determines us; There is no predetermined, established, or fixed nature, soul, essence, or self that shapes us and gives us our identity. We choose and decide ourselves uninhibitedly, ceaselessly, and totally; We are not constrained in any way, shape, or manner. Only we have the ability to give our existence any essence we choose.

By demonstrating that triangles and pens have particular, universal, and unchanging essences, functions, or forms that precede their concrete existences, Sartre clarifies and explains what he means when he says that "existence precedes essence." For instance, for something to be a triangle, it first needs to take on a particular shape that is necessary, essential, universal, and unchanging. Specifically, it must have three corners that add up to 180 degrees. What makes a triangle what it is—a triangle—is this form's universality, fixity, or essentiality.

In a similar vein, for something to be a pen, it needs to possess a certain fixed and determined essence within itself that makes writing possible and possible. That is, in order for something to be a pen and, as a result, write, it needs to have a consistent and universal form that makes writing possible; It has to have an essence that comes before its actual existence. On the other hand, according to Sartre, humans differ from triangles and pens in that they have their own unique way of being in the world. We first exist in the world, and then we choose our essence through our own unique way of being.

The beginning of Sartre's equation is Heidegger's Being and Time, where that's what heidegger says "the substance of Dasein lies in its presence". However, Heidegger distances himself in his Letter on Humanism from Sartre's understanding of existence, from Sartre's existentialism, and from existentialism itself, so there is a difference between what Heidegger and Sartre mean when they talk about existence and existing.

"Existence Precedes Essence" as a Reaction to the Conventional Qualification Among Embodiment and Presence

Sartre's recipe is a reaction to the customary differentiation in way of thinking among substance and presence, or at least, between the whatness of a thing and the simple presence of that thing. The essence, or whatness, of a thing in traditional philosophy is its universal and unchanging type, nature, form, or category. A thing's essence is its unchanging nature, which its very existence exemplifies. That which gives rise to and announces existence is the essence.

Since essences are the necessary, universal, and unchanging aspects of reality, they are traditionally positioned in opposition to existence. In contrast, existence is something that is fleeting, accidental, and contingent.

Therefore, in contrast to Plato and the entirety of Western metaphysical thought, Sartre asserts that human existence is not determined by a fixed, pre-established, or universal essence, self, or soul.

Because, according to Sartre, human beings do not possess any fixed or universal essence that could be in opposition to their existence, Sartre's formula is an attempt to disrupt this conventional juxtaposition of essences and existences. That is, humans are not governed and controlled by a predetermined nature or purpose. We have complete freedom to choose, create, and change who we are.

We are, in Sartre's view, our decisions, choices, and actions because existence comes first. The expression "existence precedes essence" refers to the fact that we decide and determine ourselves through our commitments, projects, and plans for the world. Prior to exiting, no essence can be known, determined, glimpsed, or decided. That is, we first exist on the planet and afterward characterize and conclude our own quintessence uninhibitedly as per the manner by which we pick we live. 

Critical Theory

Fundamental Cultural Elements The following are some fundamental Cultural Elements it very important topic for society :

Symbols

Norms

Values

Beliefs

Cognitive elements

Language

Language

Language is a collection of words or ideas that have the same meaning and are used in the same social context. A culture can only be entered through language. A culture's language is a collection of socially acceptable patterns, words, and sentences with particular meanings and terminology. Ethnocentrism's effects can be learned.

Language is a means of communicating with one another and conveying information. It is the process of shaping a person's experience and behavior. Language is a cultural trait that is passed down from generation to generation.

Language functions like a vehicle for our intricate social interactions. Language is both the key to social life and the foundation of a culture. Animals lack a specific language by which they can communicate with other worlds, so they do not have a culture. Thus, language is the key to opening a person's social life with special characteristics.

Symbols

The culture is a symbology. Anything used to express and denote an event or circumstance is a symbol. Symbols direct and direct our actions. It is used to depict a past, present, or future event. The ash heap, for instance, indicates that something has burned, and the wet street indicates that it has rained.

The symbols of bowing one's head, whistling, and winking at someone are all ways to convey a particular idea about another. We pray to Baith Ullah, the image of God. American shake hands in response to "No." Flags, anthems, pictures, and statues are additional examples of symbols. Short for "identification of an object or situation," symbols are used.

Norms

The rules and guidelines that define an individual's behavior are known as norms because they are elements of culture. Standards keep an individual inside the limit of society and its way of life. It imposes restrictions on what we should and shouldn't do. It teaches us what is right and wrong and shapes our behavior. Norms can be broken down into:

1. Ways of life

Folkways are the straightforward cultural practices of the people. People in a culture routinely engage in this behavior. Folkways are the perceived or acknowledged methods of conduct. These are the patterns of behavior that most people use every day.

2. Mores is the plural form of the Latin word mos, and it refers to beliefs or practices that conform to a group's customary expectation. It is a person's "must" behavior. "What ought to be and what ought not to be" are the terms Mores uses. Mores, like folkways, are serious norms that are informed. They have a significant hold on a group, and breaking the mores poses a threat to social order. For breaking the mores, punishment can be formal or informal.

Values

Our values are anything that is significant in our day-to-day lives. Values don't come from nature; rather, they are the product of social production as people live in a society and develop their values. Values rely on the way of life. Values are different in every social setting because culture is different from society to society. Values are what we like and what we express will in our general public qualities are the smart thought and thinking about an individual.

We acquire some values through our parents, books, and elders. The values of the culture can be passed down from generation to generation. A value is given to a natural object when it acquires meaning.

Beliefs

Every sect in culture has its own set of cultural refuge beliefs. The spiritual fulfillment of desires and needs is a result of these beliefs. The recitation of the Holy Quran, the Hajj, the Day of Judgment, and other concepts are held by Muslims.

Sikhs wear a bangle in one hand, bear long facial hair growth, keeping a knife. Christians wear a cross, and Hindus revere a nick made of cotton or a necklace that contains the water of the Ganga.

Cognitive Elements

A person's ability to deal with a social situation is one of the cognitive elements of culture. how to travel and get around, how to make a shelter from storms and other natural disasters, and how to survive. are the real-world skills that make a culture. Every generation carefully considers this information.

What are the 6 elements of culture?

Green Land | March 29, 2023 | 0 comments

Fundamental Cultural Elements The following are some fundamental Cultural Elements it very important topic for society :

Symbols

Norms

Values

Beliefs

Cognitive elements

Language

Language

Language is a collection of words or ideas that have the same meaning and are used in the same social context. A culture can only be entered through language. A culture's language is a collection of socially acceptable patterns, words, and sentences with particular meanings and terminology. Ethnocentrism's effects can be learned.

Language is a means of communicating with one another and conveying information. It is the process of shaping a person's experience and behavior. Language is a cultural trait that is passed down from generation to generation.

Language functions like a vehicle for our intricate social interactions. Language is both the key to social life and the foundation of a culture. Animals lack a specific language by which they can communicate with other worlds, so they do not have a culture. Thus, language is the key to opening a person's social life with special characteristics.

Symbols

The culture is a symbology. Anything used to express and denote an event or circumstance is a symbol. Symbols direct and direct our actions. It is used to depict a past, present, or future event. The ash heap, for instance, indicates that something has burned, and the wet street indicates that it has rained.

The symbols of bowing one's head, whistling, and winking at someone are all ways to convey a particular idea about another. We pray to Baith Ullah, the image of God. American shake hands in response to "No." Flags, anthems, pictures, and statues are additional examples of symbols. Short for "identification of an object or situation," symbols are used.

Norms

The rules and guidelines that define an individual's behavior are known as norms because they are elements of culture. Standards keep an individual inside the limit of society and its way of life. It imposes restrictions on what we should and shouldn't do. It teaches us what is right and wrong and shapes our behavior. Norms can be broken down into:

1. Ways of life

Folkways are the straightforward cultural practices of the people. People in a culture routinely engage in this behavior. Folkways are the perceived or acknowledged methods of conduct. These are the patterns of behavior that most people use every day.

2. Mores is the plural form of the Latin word mos, and it refers to beliefs or practices that conform to a group's customary expectation. It is a person's "must" behavior. "What ought to be and what ought not to be" are the terms Mores uses. Mores, like folkways, are serious norms that are informed. They have a significant hold on a group, and breaking the mores poses a threat to social order. For breaking the mores, punishment can be formal or informal.

Values

Our values are anything that is significant in our day-to-day lives. Values don't come from nature; rather, they are the product of social production as people live in a society and develop their values. Values rely on the way of life. Values are different in every social setting because culture is different from society to society. Values are what we like and what we express will in our general public qualities are the smart thought and thinking about an individual.

We acquire some values through our parents, books, and elders. The values of the culture can be passed down from generation to generation. A value is given to a natural object when it acquires meaning.

Beliefs

Every sect in culture has its own set of cultural refuge beliefs. The spiritual fulfillment of desires and needs is a result of these beliefs. The recitation of the Holy Quran, the Hajj, the Day of Judgment, and other concepts are held by Muslims.

Sikhs wear a bangle in one hand, bear long facial hair growth, keeping a knife. Christians wear a cross, and Hindus revere a nick made of cotton or a necklace that contains the water of the Ganga.

Cognitive Elements

A person's ability to deal with a social situation is one of the cognitive elements of culture. how to travel and get around, how to make a shelter from storms and other natural disasters, and how to survive. are the real-world skills that make a culture. Every generation carefully considers this information.

Others

What is Socialism?

In a socialistic system, participation is determined by each individual's ability to receive and contribute. As a result, people in a socialistic society typically put in a lot of effort. When a portion of the national pie is removed for the purpose of communal development, members of the community receive a portion of it. Transportation, education, and defense are among the areas into which resources are directed.

Taking care of people who are unable to contribute to social development, such as children, caregivers, and the elderly, is an interpretation of the phrase "for the common good."

Kinds of Socialism

Many types of socialism exist all over the planet, and they all contrast with regard to thoughts on how best to integrate free enterprise into a communist construction. Additionally, the various varieties of socialism place an emphasis on the various aspects of social democracy. The following are examples of socialistic systems:

1. Democratic socialism:

Factors of production are managed by an elected administration in democratic socialism. Energy, housing, and transportation are all distributed through centralized planning, whereas consumer goods are distributed through a free market system.

2. Revolutionary socialism

The central tenet of revolutionary socialism is that capitalism must remain in place for a socialistic system to emerge. Revolutionaries are of the opinion that it will take a lot of effort to achieve a solely socialist system. Through a well-developed and centralized structure, workers own and manage the production factors in this system.

3. Libertarian socialism

is that individuals are always rational, capable of self-determination, and independent. On the off chance that free enterprise is removed, individuals normally go to a communist framework since addressing their needs is capable.

4. Market socialism:

In market socialism, ordinary workers control the production process. The workers decide how to distribute resources. The workers either dispose of what is left over or give it to other members of the community, who then use a free market system to divide the resources.

5. Green socialism:

The public owns and runs large corporations in a green socialistic society. Green socialism also encourages the production and sale of food grown locally, as well as the creation and use of public transportation. The goal of the production process is to make sure that everyone in the community has enough access to necessities. Additionally, the general public is guaranteed a livable wage.

Benefits of Socialism

1. Exclusion of exploitation

Under a socialistic system, no worker is exploited. How? The community workers all have a say in how the resources are managed, and each person receives and contributes according to their potential.

Even those who are unable to contribute are guaranteed access to essential goods under the socialistic system. Accordingly, the framework assists with limiting destitution levels in the general public. Additionally, everyone has the same right to health care as well as other crucial social facets like education.

2. Discrimination is rejected by the system, and each person does what he or she is best at or enjoys doing. Higher compensation is offered when there are tasks that need to be completed but no one is available to do so. Natural resources are safeguarded for future generations.

Negative aspects of socialism:

1. Dependence on cooperative pooling

A socialistic system's reliance on cooperative pooling to complete tasks may be its greatest drawback. Additionally, those in the community who are competitive are viewed negatively. The general public anticipates collaboration and not intensity. Competitive individuals, according to socialism, typically seek personal gain by causing social unrest.

2. Socialism does not encourage entrepreneurial endeavors or innovation or competitiveness. As a result, socialism does not foster innovation as much as capitalism does.

Socialism, in contrast to capitalism, relies on the efforts of each community member. The profits from manipulating production factors are shared equally among all community members. Its key benefit is that no single part works more than the rest, and people who can't take part are accommodated also. However, given that the government is in charge of everything, it may misuse its power. 

Features and Characteristics of Socialism

Green Land | March 28, 2023 | 0 comments

What is Socialism?

In a socialistic system, participation is determined by each individual's ability to receive and contribute. As a result, people in a socialistic society typically put in a lot of effort. When a portion of the national pie is removed for the purpose of communal development, members of the community receive a portion of it. Transportation, education, and defense are among the areas into which resources are directed.

Taking care of people who are unable to contribute to social development, such as children, caregivers, and the elderly, is an interpretation of the phrase "for the common good."

Kinds of Socialism

Many types of socialism exist all over the planet, and they all contrast with regard to thoughts on how best to integrate free enterprise into a communist construction. Additionally, the various varieties of socialism place an emphasis on the various aspects of social democracy. The following are examples of socialistic systems:

1. Democratic socialism:

Factors of production are managed by an elected administration in democratic socialism. Energy, housing, and transportation are all distributed through centralized planning, whereas consumer goods are distributed through a free market system.

2. Revolutionary socialism

The central tenet of revolutionary socialism is that capitalism must remain in place for a socialistic system to emerge. Revolutionaries are of the opinion that it will take a lot of effort to achieve a solely socialist system. Through a well-developed and centralized structure, workers own and manage the production factors in this system.

3. Libertarian socialism

is that individuals are always rational, capable of self-determination, and independent. On the off chance that free enterprise is removed, individuals normally go to a communist framework since addressing their needs is capable.

4. Market socialism:

In market socialism, ordinary workers control the production process. The workers decide how to distribute resources. The workers either dispose of what is left over or give it to other members of the community, who then use a free market system to divide the resources.

5. Green socialism:

The public owns and runs large corporations in a green socialistic society. Green socialism also encourages the production and sale of food grown locally, as well as the creation and use of public transportation. The goal of the production process is to make sure that everyone in the community has enough access to necessities. Additionally, the general public is guaranteed a livable wage.

Benefits of Socialism

1. Exclusion of exploitation

Under a socialistic system, no worker is exploited. How? The community workers all have a say in how the resources are managed, and each person receives and contributes according to their potential.

Even those who are unable to contribute are guaranteed access to essential goods under the socialistic system. Accordingly, the framework assists with limiting destitution levels in the general public. Additionally, everyone has the same right to health care as well as other crucial social facets like education.

2. Discrimination is rejected by the system, and each person does what he or she is best at or enjoys doing. Higher compensation is offered when there are tasks that need to be completed but no one is available to do so. Natural resources are safeguarded for future generations.

Negative aspects of socialism:

1. Dependence on cooperative pooling

A socialistic system's reliance on cooperative pooling to complete tasks may be its greatest drawback. Additionally, those in the community who are competitive are viewed negatively. The general public anticipates collaboration and not intensity. Competitive individuals, according to socialism, typically seek personal gain by causing social unrest.

2. Socialism does not encourage entrepreneurial endeavors or innovation or competitiveness. As a result, socialism does not foster innovation as much as capitalism does.

Socialism, in contrast to capitalism, relies on the efforts of each community member. The profits from manipulating production factors are shared equally among all community members. Its key benefit is that no single part works more than the rest, and people who can't take part are accommodated also. However, given that the government is in charge of everything, it may misuse its power. 

Important Short Notes , Sociology

Most societies have a characterizing highlight. Anthropologists shouldn't be surprised by strange customs because they are so familiar with the many different ways humans act, even in similar situations. According to George Murdock's proposal, if a custom hasn't been observed, it probably exists in an unknown tribe. Because they are so unusual, the Nacirema's customs show how extreme human behavior can be.

The Nacirema tribe, a North American group that lives in a rich natural habitat between Mexican and Canadian tribes, was the subject of Professor Linton's initial research; however, the identity of the Nacirema people remains a mystery. Legend has it that they originate from the east, though their exact location is unknown. A developed market economy that thrives in the habitat is the focus of the culture. People focus a lot of their time on making money. The remainder of the time is spent in customs connected with the human body.

Ugliness of the body:

The Nacirema's fundamental belief is that the body is ugly and susceptible to weakness. As a result, man uses ceremony and ritual to avoid being vulnerable. For these customs, stone shrines are built into homes, and those with more money may even have many shrines. Only children who are being taught the rituals in the shrines are allowed to discuss the private nature of the rituals. A wall-built potion box is the focal point of the shrine. The medicine men who make the potions write down the ingredients in a secret language in exchange for gifts. The Nacirema provide gifts in exchange for the prescribed charms, and herbalists decipher the writing.

After being used, the charms are saved in the charm box for specific ailments. The natives overlook the intended use of these magical packets, which frequently fill the charm box to capacity. However, it appears that the people are shielded from the charms. There is a font beneath the charm box where people clean themselves each day. The water that comes out is holy because it comes from the community Water Temple, where "elaborate ceremonies" purify it.

Mouth-Rituals:

Other mysterious professionals rank underneath medication men. " The Nacirema are both fascinated and horrified by the tribe's mouths, which are cared for by holy-mouth-men. They engage in rituals to prevent their teeth from falling out, their gums from bleeding, and their partners and friends from rejecting them. Additionally, they associate the moral character with a clean mouth. Every day, people perform a strange mouth ritual in which they move their mouths in a certain way after inserting hog hairs and magical powder into their mouths. Two times a year, people go to a holy mouth man, who uses probes and prods to fill in holes in teeth in order to perform ritual torture on the victim. In order to apply the magic substance, portions of the teeth are gouged if there are no holes. Despite its continued decay, people continue to visit these practitioners annually, indicating that the ritual is clearly holy.

It is hoped that the personality of holy-mouthed men will be analyzed when the Nacirema are better studied. As they torture their clients, one can see their eyes sparkle as they work. If they truly enjoy this work, it may help establish Professor Linton's pattern of masochism—the pleasure of being abused or dominated. He observed additional rituals that appear to demonstrate the Nacirema's enjoyment of torture. Men scrape their faces every day with a sharp object, while women bake their heads four times a month in small ovens.

A final type of witch doctor, known as a "listener," removes demons from patients' minds. The tribe holds the belief that parents, particularly mothers, teach their own children occult body rituals. Listeners, unlike other practitioners, do not follow any rituals. From their earliest childhood memories, the patient simply shares their anxieties and problems with the person listening. The Nacirema have incredible memories, including memories of rejection at weaning and even trauma at birth.

The Temple

Medicine Men have a temple called a latipso where they give very sick members of the tribe elaborate ceremonies. Maidens who move through the latipso and magicians are known as thaumaturges, who perform miracles, and participate in the ceremonies. Children are afraid to go to the latipso, or "where you go to die," because the ceremonies are so harsh. However, if they can afford it, adults are eager to take part in ritual purification. If they are unable to pay, Latipsos will not accept even the sickest customers.

Strangely, the client is stripped of all clothing in the temple, as Nacirema typically avoid being exposed. The tribe performs secret rituals for body care and bathing. People who have never been exposed to the latipso or performed excretory functions in another person's presence may experience a shock. However, it is required: The illness is diagnosed using excretions. Medicine men manipulate and poke women's bodies. The majority of people who are in the temple do nothing but lie in bed, where they are subjected to painful and sometimes even lethal rituals like being needled.

Other Rituals:

The aversion to the natural body can be seen in other rituals. Feasts are meant to make those who are fat thin, whereas ritual fasts are meant to make those who are fat thin. Women's breasts, a body part whose ideal form is virtually impossible to achieve, can be made larger or smaller by some rituals. Some women can survive by allowing villagers to simply stare at their breasts, despite their nearly inhuman size.

Reproduction, like excretory functions, is secret and ritualized. Sexual encounters are rarely discussed and frequently scheduled. People who use magic potions are able to avoid getting pregnant, which makes pregnancy very rare. When women do become pregnant, they cover their growing stomachs with clothing. The majority of women do not nurse their infants and give birth in secret.

The Nacirema's "magic-ridden" nature makes it difficult to comprehend how they have survived for so long given the demands they place on themselves. Bronislaw Malinowski offers some insight by stating that, despite the fact that magic appears to be insignificant and crude, its power and guidance have assisted man in reaching "higher stages of civilization."

Analysis

"Body Ritual among the Nacirema" is an account of the fictitious Nacirema (American spelled backward), which turns out to be a satire of mainstream American culture and anthropological methods at the end of the essay. Horace Mitchell Miner mocks Americans' obsession with their bodies and makes a statement about the nature of anthropological work, particularly in relation to ethnocentrism, through tone and diction.

Tone and Diction

Miner adopts a formal tone throughout the text, addressing the reader with vocabulary that is educated and scholarly, similar to that used in anthropological publications. "The anthropologist has become... familiar with the diversity of ways in which... people behave," at the beginning of the essay, establishes Miner as an informed expert on the subject and lends him credibility. Miner's third-person account of this enigmatic tribe presents a culture that the reader eventually understands to be that of Americans. The tone makes Miner appear knowledgeable and authoritative, making the reader feel superior to the tribe. Through formalized language, his diction sets the reader apart from the tribe. For instance, Miner's use of academic language may make it difficult for the reader to comprehend that he is simply describing toothbrushing when he writes that the Nacirema insert "a small bundle of hog hairs into the mouth" and then move it "in a highly formalized series of gestures." 

Body ritual among the nacirema summary

Green Land | March 28, 2023 | 0 comments

Most societies have a characterizing highlight. Anthropologists shouldn't be surprised by strange customs because they are so familiar with the many different ways humans act, even in similar situations. According to George Murdock's proposal, if a custom hasn't been observed, it probably exists in an unknown tribe. Because they are so unusual, the Nacirema's customs show how extreme human behavior can be.

The Nacirema tribe, a North American group that lives in a rich natural habitat between Mexican and Canadian tribes, was the subject of Professor Linton's initial research; however, the identity of the Nacirema people remains a mystery. Legend has it that they originate from the east, though their exact location is unknown. A developed market economy that thrives in the habitat is the focus of the culture. People focus a lot of their time on making money. The remainder of the time is spent in customs connected with the human body.

Ugliness of the body:

The Nacirema's fundamental belief is that the body is ugly and susceptible to weakness. As a result, man uses ceremony and ritual to avoid being vulnerable. For these customs, stone shrines are built into homes, and those with more money may even have many shrines. Only children who are being taught the rituals in the shrines are allowed to discuss the private nature of the rituals. A wall-built potion box is the focal point of the shrine. The medicine men who make the potions write down the ingredients in a secret language in exchange for gifts. The Nacirema provide gifts in exchange for the prescribed charms, and herbalists decipher the writing.

After being used, the charms are saved in the charm box for specific ailments. The natives overlook the intended use of these magical packets, which frequently fill the charm box to capacity. However, it appears that the people are shielded from the charms. There is a font beneath the charm box where people clean themselves each day. The water that comes out is holy because it comes from the community Water Temple, where "elaborate ceremonies" purify it.

Mouth-Rituals:

Other mysterious professionals rank underneath medication men. " The Nacirema are both fascinated and horrified by the tribe's mouths, which are cared for by holy-mouth-men. They engage in rituals to prevent their teeth from falling out, their gums from bleeding, and their partners and friends from rejecting them. Additionally, they associate the moral character with a clean mouth. Every day, people perform a strange mouth ritual in which they move their mouths in a certain way after inserting hog hairs and magical powder into their mouths. Two times a year, people go to a holy mouth man, who uses probes and prods to fill in holes in teeth in order to perform ritual torture on the victim. In order to apply the magic substance, portions of the teeth are gouged if there are no holes. Despite its continued decay, people continue to visit these practitioners annually, indicating that the ritual is clearly holy.

It is hoped that the personality of holy-mouthed men will be analyzed when the Nacirema are better studied. As they torture their clients, one can see their eyes sparkle as they work. If they truly enjoy this work, it may help establish Professor Linton's pattern of masochism—the pleasure of being abused or dominated. He observed additional rituals that appear to demonstrate the Nacirema's enjoyment of torture. Men scrape their faces every day with a sharp object, while women bake their heads four times a month in small ovens.

A final type of witch doctor, known as a "listener," removes demons from patients' minds. The tribe holds the belief that parents, particularly mothers, teach their own children occult body rituals. Listeners, unlike other practitioners, do not follow any rituals. From their earliest childhood memories, the patient simply shares their anxieties and problems with the person listening. The Nacirema have incredible memories, including memories of rejection at weaning and even trauma at birth.

The Temple

Medicine Men have a temple called a latipso where they give very sick members of the tribe elaborate ceremonies. Maidens who move through the latipso and magicians are known as thaumaturges, who perform miracles, and participate in the ceremonies. Children are afraid to go to the latipso, or "where you go to die," because the ceremonies are so harsh. However, if they can afford it, adults are eager to take part in ritual purification. If they are unable to pay, Latipsos will not accept even the sickest customers.

Strangely, the client is stripped of all clothing in the temple, as Nacirema typically avoid being exposed. The tribe performs secret rituals for body care and bathing. People who have never been exposed to the latipso or performed excretory functions in another person's presence may experience a shock. However, it is required: The illness is diagnosed using excretions. Medicine men manipulate and poke women's bodies. The majority of people who are in the temple do nothing but lie in bed, where they are subjected to painful and sometimes even lethal rituals like being needled.

Other Rituals:

The aversion to the natural body can be seen in other rituals. Feasts are meant to make those who are fat thin, whereas ritual fasts are meant to make those who are fat thin. Women's breasts, a body part whose ideal form is virtually impossible to achieve, can be made larger or smaller by some rituals. Some women can survive by allowing villagers to simply stare at their breasts, despite their nearly inhuman size.

Reproduction, like excretory functions, is secret and ritualized. Sexual encounters are rarely discussed and frequently scheduled. People who use magic potions are able to avoid getting pregnant, which makes pregnancy very rare. When women do become pregnant, they cover their growing stomachs with clothing. The majority of women do not nurse their infants and give birth in secret.

The Nacirema's "magic-ridden" nature makes it difficult to comprehend how they have survived for so long given the demands they place on themselves. Bronislaw Malinowski offers some insight by stating that, despite the fact that magic appears to be insignificant and crude, its power and guidance have assisted man in reaching "higher stages of civilization."

Analysis

"Body Ritual among the Nacirema" is an account of the fictitious Nacirema (American spelled backward), which turns out to be a satire of mainstream American culture and anthropological methods at the end of the essay. Horace Mitchell Miner mocks Americans' obsession with their bodies and makes a statement about the nature of anthropological work, particularly in relation to ethnocentrism, through tone and diction.

Tone and Diction

Miner adopts a formal tone throughout the text, addressing the reader with vocabulary that is educated and scholarly, similar to that used in anthropological publications. "The anthropologist has become... familiar with the diversity of ways in which... people behave," at the beginning of the essay, establishes Miner as an informed expert on the subject and lends him credibility. Miner's third-person account of this enigmatic tribe presents a culture that the reader eventually understands to be that of Americans. The tone makes Miner appear knowledgeable and authoritative, making the reader feel superior to the tribe. Through formalized language, his diction sets the reader apart from the tribe. For instance, Miner's use of academic language may make it difficult for the reader to comprehend that he is simply describing toothbrushing when he writes that the Nacirema insert "a small bundle of hog hairs into the mouth" and then move it "in a highly formalized series of gestures." 

Body Ritual Among The Nacirema , Horace Mitchell Miner

In her Modern Fiction, Virginia Woolf makes an honest effort to briefly discuss the major trends in contemporary fiction or novels. She begins her essay by mentioning traditionalists like H. G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, and Galsworthy. Despite the fact that these authors present novelists with fresh ideas and new perspectives, they still adhere to the Victorian novelist's style. Read More Essay They believed that one's environment had a significant impact on one's personality. However, their subject matter was different from one another: Arnold and Galsworthy took a socialist stance, while Wells wrote brilliant scientific romances. Read More In Her Essay, Mrs. Woolf labels these three individuals as "materialists." Woolf says in her definition of the term that these writers' writing is full of irrelevant details; They use a lot of skill and dexterity to give the insignificant and fleeting a boost of reality. The literary work is of little use because life escapes. Mrs. Woolf while condemning the three makes a crucial place of analysis on the conventional strategy for the novel composition of Handling types.

Mrs. Woolf pushes her point even further by asserting that the types lack spirit or life, truth, or reality. The traditional method of writing novels, which relies on superficial characterization and artificial framework, fails to capture the essence of the work, which is the reality of life. ‘The writer seems constrained, not by his own free will but by some powerful and unscrupulous tyrant,' according to this type. Read More in the Essay The tyrant is nothing more than a list of types, including plot, comedy, tragedy, love treatment, and so on. We get the death of life or spirit, spontaneity, or the flow of conscience at the behest of terminology or doggerel methods when we dress up all of these criteria.

Mrs. Woolf makes it abundantly clear that the author's goal in writing is to examine oneself and life as a whole. That moment, when the mind receives a plethora of impressions—minor, fantastic, ephemeral, or engraved—is not captured by traditionalism or materialism. As a result, a writer can write whatever he wants because he is free to trust in life. Read More Essay In order to jot down what he believes should not be typical in the accepted styles of comedy, tragedy, or love interests. This is a retreat from the external world and into the dim half-light of the author's private world. The human mind's inner workings and perceptions constitute reality, not external actions.

Virginia Woolf Analyzing the flow of life, Mrs. Woolf explains that life is not a sequence of symmetrically arranged stories. She describes it as "a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of conscious to the end." Consciousness is a continuous flow that is neither joined nor fragmented. As a result, the writer's goal ought to be to delve ever deeper into human consciousness. In this regard, Mrs. Woolf makes reference to pioneers like Joseph Conrad and James Joyce. She cites The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Ulysses as examples, pointing out that by recording the "atoms of life" in the stream of consciousness, the story appears to be disconnected but coherent. Read More Essay There is undeniably significant spirit or life in this fragmented, hazardous, unpleasant ineffable style. "In contrast with those whom we have called materialists, Mr. Joyce is spiritual," Mrs. Woolf says. Read More Essay Because it seems impossible to provide a psychologically accurate account of character through these means, the external aspects of personality—such as habits, manners, and physical appearance—are completely discarded. Joyce in his novel loses himself in the intricacies and nuances of internal life.

Mrs. Woolf makes it clear that the new book about consciousness is only psychological. Life is no longer viewed as a collection of stories but rather as a series of moments under the influence of new psychological theories. Read More Essay In point of fact, a stream of consciousness is the psychological theory of the functioning mind. Mrs. Woolf asserts that the method or method of capturing them is truly the new type. Joyce and the types who are going to investigate the gloomy realms of psychology are omitted here, and they still date. Here, Mrs. Woolf makes an important observation from Russian literature, particularly from Chekhov, who explores both the mind and the heart. The spiritualism, saintliness, and inquisitiveness of Russian literature have influenced contemporary English fiction.

In conclusion, Mrs. Woolf in Modern Fiction begs readers not to be rigid or narrow-minded. She asserts that the artistic possibilities are numerous and that the sky is the limit. There is no such thing as a "method," experiment, or extraordinary in this setting; rather, only pretense and falsity should be discarded. Read More Essay There is no such thing as the "proper stuff" of fiction; rather, everything is the "proper stuff" of fiction if it contains spirit or life.

What is Modern Fiction according to Virginia Woolf?

Green Land | March 28, 2023 | 0 comments

In her Modern Fiction, Virginia Woolf makes an honest effort to briefly discuss the major trends in contemporary fiction or novels. She begins her essay by mentioning traditionalists like H. G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, and Galsworthy. Despite the fact that these authors present novelists with fresh ideas and new perspectives, they still adhere to the Victorian novelist's style. Read More Essay They believed that one's environment had a significant impact on one's personality. However, their subject matter was different from one another: Arnold and Galsworthy took a socialist stance, while Wells wrote brilliant scientific romances. Read More In Her Essay, Mrs. Woolf labels these three individuals as "materialists." Woolf says in her definition of the term that these writers' writing is full of irrelevant details; They use a lot of skill and dexterity to give the insignificant and fleeting a boost of reality. The literary work is of little use because life escapes. Mrs. Woolf while condemning the three makes a crucial place of analysis on the conventional strategy for the novel composition of Handling types.

Mrs. Woolf pushes her point even further by asserting that the types lack spirit or life, truth, or reality. The traditional method of writing novels, which relies on superficial characterization and artificial framework, fails to capture the essence of the work, which is the reality of life. ‘The writer seems constrained, not by his own free will but by some powerful and unscrupulous tyrant,' according to this type. Read More in the Essay The tyrant is nothing more than a list of types, including plot, comedy, tragedy, love treatment, and so on. We get the death of life or spirit, spontaneity, or the flow of conscience at the behest of terminology or doggerel methods when we dress up all of these criteria.

Mrs. Woolf makes it abundantly clear that the author's goal in writing is to examine oneself and life as a whole. That moment, when the mind receives a plethora of impressions—minor, fantastic, ephemeral, or engraved—is not captured by traditionalism or materialism. As a result, a writer can write whatever he wants because he is free to trust in life. Read More Essay In order to jot down what he believes should not be typical in the accepted styles of comedy, tragedy, or love interests. This is a retreat from the external world and into the dim half-light of the author's private world. The human mind's inner workings and perceptions constitute reality, not external actions.

Virginia Woolf Analyzing the flow of life, Mrs. Woolf explains that life is not a sequence of symmetrically arranged stories. She describes it as "a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of conscious to the end." Consciousness is a continuous flow that is neither joined nor fragmented. As a result, the writer's goal ought to be to delve ever deeper into human consciousness. In this regard, Mrs. Woolf makes reference to pioneers like Joseph Conrad and James Joyce. She cites The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Ulysses as examples, pointing out that by recording the "atoms of life" in the stream of consciousness, the story appears to be disconnected but coherent. Read More Essay There is undeniably significant spirit or life in this fragmented, hazardous, unpleasant ineffable style. "In contrast with those whom we have called materialists, Mr. Joyce is spiritual," Mrs. Woolf says. Read More Essay Because it seems impossible to provide a psychologically accurate account of character through these means, the external aspects of personality—such as habits, manners, and physical appearance—are completely discarded. Joyce in his novel loses himself in the intricacies and nuances of internal life.

Mrs. Woolf makes it clear that the new book about consciousness is only psychological. Life is no longer viewed as a collection of stories but rather as a series of moments under the influence of new psychological theories. Read More Essay In point of fact, a stream of consciousness is the psychological theory of the functioning mind. Mrs. Woolf asserts that the method or method of capturing them is truly the new type. Joyce and the types who are going to investigate the gloomy realms of psychology are omitted here, and they still date. Here, Mrs. Woolf makes an important observation from Russian literature, particularly from Chekhov, who explores both the mind and the heart. The spiritualism, saintliness, and inquisitiveness of Russian literature have influenced contemporary English fiction.

In conclusion, Mrs. Woolf in Modern Fiction begs readers not to be rigid or narrow-minded. She asserts that the artistic possibilities are numerous and that the sky is the limit. There is no such thing as a "method," experiment, or extraordinary in this setting; rather, only pretense and falsity should be discarded. Read More Essay There is no such thing as the "proper stuff" of fiction; rather, everything is the "proper stuff" of fiction if it contains spirit or life.

Virginia Woolf