365betÓéÀÖ

Dr. PRANI MOHANTY

Culture is a way of life. It is a continuous process by which ideas are exchanged and transmitted from man to man, from generation to generation in a given society. Culture develops in and through the different levels of a particular society. Society is a complex structure in which diverse cultural traditions are formed, transmitted and modified and communication is established in the midst of these diversities of cultural traditions are formed, transmitted and modified and communication is established in the midst of these diversities of cultural traditions. Thus, the concept culture has a meaning in a given social and cultural context. How the diversity of cultural traditions is to be under­stood meaningfully is the question before a philosopher. We must follow a scientific methodology which includes the comparative study of diverse cultures existing in a society. In a particular society, one may discover processes of cultural traditions and “in complex modern societies there are a great number of separate cultural traditionsâ€�.¹

The separate cultural traditions do not coalesce but often confront with each other. This confrontation is much common in the present day material world than in the primitive time. Conflicting cultural patterns are possible when various cultures develop freely, grow freely without hatred or misunderstanding. The question of identity arises when a given society is over­burdened with conflicting cultural patterns. This problem of conflicting culture is to be studied through a study of “institutionalised social relations involved in the transmission of cultural traditionsâ€� ² For T.S. Eliot, families are the important channels of transmission of culture. Robert Redfield has defined it “as the way in which elements of action are put together in any particular case of transmission of traditionâ€�.³ The transmission of tradition is cultivated in a society by different castes and sects, by different religious leaders and teachers, etc. The concept of social oragnisation and structure of cultural tradition is meaningful only when “littleâ€� and “greatâ€� traditions are in mutual contact and communication. Social relations in respect of marriage, trade, political administration, etc., are the medium of the “cultural transmissionâ€� which enables us to discover and express a sense of “cultural identityâ€�. Cultural identity can overcome the antino­mies existing between one culture pattern and another. “By con­centrating on the institutionalised social relations, media and fun­ctionaries which transmit specific cultural traditions from person to person and from group to group, this approach is at once both structural and culturalâ€�.⁴ The main point lies in understanding the important cultural manifestations. We are to deal with people who stand in a living relationship to the essentials of their culture. Each culture upholds a particular scale of value. All value judge­ments are culturally conditioned. Even primitive culture is no exception to this. We should not look at the primitive culture in the eyes of western thinking which emphasises on intellectual cognitive. ⁵

Intellectual cognition demands a sharp distinction between one’s own pure thought and pure action. Pure action belongs to the sphere of outer world and pure thought belongs to the inner world. One is private and the other is public. “And since both are created, there seems to be a point of identity, but since these two are completely different, there is no point of contact between the twoâ€�.⁶

The problem of identity and differences are very conflicting ideas. It has to be tackled very carefully. The difference can be over­come if a thinking being cultivated self-discipline. We can mould the identity in such a way that all differences would disappear says Prof. G. Misra. The confusion of cultural pattern arises because of our sharp distinction between the pure thought and pure action. A compromise has to be made between the two. Humanity everywhere is one and human culture is also essentially one. Every society is governed by its cultural tradition and in complex modern societies there are a number of separate cultural traditions. Communication has to be reinforced between the separate local traditions and wider regional and national cultural traditions.

Otherwise, it would lead to unnecessary conflicting situations. The identity of every particular culture is to be sought for without dismissing the other when there is an interaction in complex cultures the problem of identity arises. An intelligent being is aware of the greatness of another culture as it happened in the West with Marxist conception of “Mass Culture�.

Mass culture is a positive death-blow over the “High Culture� of the capitalists. It has no definite ethics, no moral code of conduct. F.R. Leavis in his book “Mass Civilization and Minority Culture� writes “Culture was at crisis�. For Leavis it is the machine which radically breaks families, affects religion and value. The modern mass culture is a stepping-stone towards dehumanisation resulting in “cultural barbarism�. That’s why Nietzsche dismissed the masses as mediocre, morally corrupt. The vamps, beatniks and gangsters are mad after mass media, pop music and cheap best-sellers. It is not family but State which is supreme.

Rightly Daniel Bell points out, “for the modern, cosmopolitan-­man, culture has replaced both religion and work as a means of self-fulfilment or as justification â€� of life without fear, creating those crude values in the absence of which society must necessarily collapse into anarchy or anomicâ€�.⁷ The concept of culture of F.R. Leavis and Eliot which emphasises on religion and value system is opposed to Mass Culture which undermines traditional value and social organisation. It rejects the material as well as the technological developments in communication which are, of course, essential pre-requisites for a universal culture. The con­sciousness of an identity is growing up fast in the different cultural groups in the modern world. But the whole problem lies with the proper understanding of one’s culture. Lack of under­standing leads to utter intolerance, mutual mistrust, hatred and jealousy. Raymond Williams in “Culture and Societyâ€� writes, “The human crisis is always a crisis of understandingâ€�. Mass Culture, which is an antithesis of “High Cultureâ€� is in full support of technology which again is the cause of the collapse of a value system. It encourages pervasiveness right from drug addicts to wife-swapping underworld business, light music, etc. It is anti-­religious, anti-rational. Roughly speaking, it is a debasement of culture, aptly called a “pseudo-cultureâ€�.

We must try to observe and analyse rigorously the different traditions within a definite framework of culture and try to link up between “the little traditionâ€� of the uneducated and the half-­educated. Everyone has a claim to all that is best in any culture of the world. Mutual checking and balancing lead to proper understanding of one’s culture. Indian culture is apparently motiva­ted in this direction. In India, unlike West, the culture is identified with man and hence Indian culture is called as “human cultureâ€� (manava dharma or samskriti). It is so very comprehensive that it houses the diversities of caste, creed, religion, colour, etc. It has an universal appeal. It has been growing, changing, developing as per the need of the hour. There are, of course, linguistic, racial, religious and political differences. But all these differences are reconciled at the time of a crisis. The concept of understanding is adjudged to be in the highest order in our catholic humane culture. It, therefore, accommodates, adjusts not only with this or that particular group of people but with the fast-changing world as a whole. The word “s²¹³¾²õ°ì°ù¾±³Ù¾±â€� stands for purification. transformation and perfection of the mankind. Indian culture believes in the â€�Pinda Brahmandaâ€� theory ...... â€�Yat pindo tat brahmandaâ€�.

Man is neither a mere machine nor a physical entity. Both man and machine can do wrong. Both are subject to correction, one who understands the two â€� his own self as well as the mechanical tools â€� is something superb, something distinct. The material mechanical pursuit of the modern Western culture can summarilly be rejected even by two little Indians like Nachiketa and Maitreyi. “The time is indeed ripe and the stage is set, for a correct understanding of the various patterns of culture and for exploring the methods for their harmonizing, taking our stand on the fundamentals and not on the accidentals, on the agreement and not on the divergencesâ€�.⁸ The basic values of Indian culture are “s²¹³¾²¹²Ô±¹²¹²â²¹â€� (synthesis), â€ÂÙ²¹³Ù²â²¹-Âá¾±Âá²Ô²¹²õ²¹â€� (desire to know the truth)

In the cultural milieu of India, religion does play a major role. Religion often creates bitterness, division, discord and disinte­gration. Blind faith without proper understanding for the sake of identity fosters and further breeds intolerance and animosity between man and man in the same culture or between one culture and another culture. Religion, race, castes, classes are dangerous weapons. One must handle these weapons very cautiously. The essence of all great religions is same, the goal is same. It aims at the general good, the overall welfare of the man and the society at large. It is only the fanatics under the garb of pseudo religious cover creates a wound which aggravates human suffering in this planet. One must dismiss such religion which disintegrates. “To neglect the spiritual unity of the world and undermine the religious diversity would be philosophically unjustifiable, morally undesirable and socially dangerousâ€�,⁹ writes Radhakrishnan. Religion therefore must be life-oriented, must be humanistic.

Indian culture in spite of its appalling diversity is humani­stic. In this global age, when there is ethnic problem in Srilanka or drought in South Africa or even racial, religious and political crisis in some part of the country, the whole humanity can’t remain just unconcerned and indifferent. Human understanding is more important than the understanding of either a machine or God. Both machine and God create a chasm, an unbridgeable gulf.

Philosophy produces either “machine man� or “ascetics�. But man is neither “this� nor “that�. Man is a distinct individual. He can distinguish and identify objects, persons from one another. While identifying others he identifies himself. A man who does not live in a society can’t identify himself. Understanding of such a human situation is more important than the understanding of either a machine or God. Human understanding can resolve different cultural conflicts and unity if not identity can be reinforced. Human understanding is not simply a make-believe. If we take it in that spirit, then it leads to bad logic. It would be something like I.A. Richards� pseudo-statement. A pseudo-statement can’t help us to understand either man or the universe. We must deepen our understanding to know the diversity of cultural conditioning. All value judgements are culturally conditioned. They originate in the social and cultural context. They are variable. There can’t be any common standard for measuring all values. All value judge­ments are equally important in different social contexts. One society must tolerate the value system of other societies in the mutual interest. In no society a rapist or a murderer can be rewarded. No society can tolerate if family tie is threatened. There must be mutual understanding in diverse cultural formulations. This understanding would lead to mutual co-existence. In the absence of which cultural crisis and conflicts of culture would arise.

REFERENCES

¹ D.L. Sills, Encyclopaedia of the Social sciences Vol. 3. Macmillan. 1972 p. 536.
² Ibid. p. 536
³ Ibid., p. 536
⁴ Ibid., p. 536
⁵ A Swiagewood, The Myth of Mass Culture, Macmillan. 1972 p. 35.
⁶ G. Reign Indian philosophy To-day. Macmillan. 1975 p. 157.
⁷ The Myth of Mass Culture, p. 22.
⁸ S. K. Chattarjee: Indian Culture, a Universal publication, 1966 p. 41.
⁹ S. Radhakrishnan Recovery of Faith. Orient paper book p. 180.