Parishti Project

I dislike using the word culture without defining it, because its overuse has turned it into a bucket of thought terminating clichés into which society as a whole (but academics in particular) vomit deeply held prejudices about the "other".

From a sociological perspective, culture is simply the agreed terms by which individuals engage with each other. George Simmel's framework is useful for understanding how cultures develop, and why cultures develop differently based on their context.[1]

Simmel's three-stage formulation of the development of culture can be further subdivided to include two transition stages, as follows:

1. Proto-Culture (Simmel/Coser).
   At this stage of development, there is no society. This is the stage at which all parties are strangers and encountering each other for the first time. They create between them some means of meaningful exchange: a way to greet each other, a way to signal peaceable intentions, a desire to trade, etc. none of which are binding on the parties.
   
   Norms have not yet developed, and there is not yet any culture with which to comply.
    
2. Non-Binding Norms (transition stage).
   This is that state at which parties have met before but do not know each other well. Some shared meaning can be carried over from the initial encounter, but much is yet unsettled about how to proceed, and there remains room for misunderstanding.
   
   While norms are being established, there is not yet any enforceable culture. Compliance is still voluntary.
    
3. Objective Culture (Simmel/Coser).
   This is the stage at which the parties are established trading partners, in society with each other. The minutiae of social relationships are settled (such as greeting each other with a handshake, discussions over a shared meal, understanding about who will pick up the tab, etc.). The larger terms of a trade are still open to negotiation, but the niceties are established.
   
   There is a loose culture with which compliance with social norms is expected, but not yet centrally enforced. Lack of compliance will be met with social ostracism by other members, but not punished per se.
    
4. Laws (transition stage).
   At this stage the rules are not only established but written down as laws. A newcomer can learn the local culture by reading the laws, and thus can know in advance how not to contravene them.
   
   Laws that do not have the desired effect are still subject to amendment or repeal. Though already negotiated, culture is subject to renegotiation as necessary to allow for the better functioning of the society.
   
   Documentation of laws allows for external enforcement of culture. Bureaucracies can be built around enforcing compliance, eliminating the need for direct enforcement by the members.
   
   The role of unrelated third-parties (strangers to the contract) in enforcement of culture/laws, creates the (false) perception of objectivity and an expectation of fairness.
    
5. Religion  (Simmel/Coser).
   At this stage, society has recognized the limitation of an enforcement bureaucracy that is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Infractions that are not seen cannot be punished. Even enforcement of laws requires an omniscient/omnipotent observer, and thus one is created.
   
   An unintended by incidental consequence of creating an omniscient/omnipotent observer to enforce laws (or cultural compliance) is that law/culture become ossified, and unmoored from their intended purpose. Thus, a rational trade policy not to import fabrics from a competitor might become an irrational prohibition against the weaving together of wool and linen.

 
~~~~~
[1] Simmel's work is most commonly found in the writing of his students, as he failed to publish much of his work. See: Lewis A Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1956). 

[2] Deuteronomy 22:11: “Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.”