Has Culture Theory Lost Its Minds? Export

@article{citeulike:1928311, author = {Linger, Daniel T.}, citeulike-article-id = {1928311}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/640402}, comment = {criticizes 'conduit model' of communication .. where meaning is transfered via symbol rather than actively made on the basis of a signal (and involved in complex communicative processes besides). moves to a discussion of how the conduit model warps 'interpretive' anthro, then to a different concept of culture and a defense of cognitive anthro based on the 'inkblot' (alternative) model of communication->culture. (look below .. internal meaning systems triggered by tokens, some of which are intersubjective, a lot of which are personal) touches on cognitive linguistics, culture theory, interpretive and discourse based anthro, metaphor, enculturation, communication (as "social and intrapsychic practice. it cannot be boiled down to a set of meanings 'conveyed' or 'embodied in' meanings" (10), semantics - theories of meaning (extensional [referential, black boxes mind] vs intensional [experienced sense]), relation of culture and psychology, identity, discourse. really well written. good analysis of interpretive anthro, including geertz, and postructuralist (critical?) anthro, which replaces analytic concept of 'culture' for 'discourse'. thoughts: wonder how the elaborations of semiotics might interface with 'symbol as just a communicative token triggering meanings [as system of concepts] with partial correspondence/intersubjectivity .. culture as the sum total of such intersubjective correspondences for a given group at a given time' .. that is "our - stock of symbols - words, rituals, physical signs" - seems to lump all types of symbols together, rather than acknowledging the peculiarities (including syntax) through which they signify .. what effect might this have? (not a big problem for his reconceptualization of culture, since it only seeks intersubjectivity .. which leaves room for a lot) problem: where's the account of the alternative approach? maybe email writer..}, journal = {Ethos}, keywords = {cognitive-anthro, culture-theory, meaning}, number = {3}, pages = {284--315}, posted-at = {2007-12-30 15:51:27}, priority = {3}, title = {Has Culture Theory Lost Its Minds?}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/640402}, volume = {22}, year = {1994} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1928311 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1928311 IS - 3 JF - Ethos EP - 315 TI - Has Culture Theory Lost Its Minds? VL - 22 SP - 284 KW - cognitive-anthro KW - culture-theory KW - meaning N1 - criticizes 'conduit model' of communication .. where meaning is transfered via symbol rather than actively made on the basis of a signal (and involved in complex communicative processes besides). moves to a discussion of how the conduit model warps 'interpretive' anthro, then to a different concept of culture and a defense of cognitive anthro based on the 'inkblot' (alternative) model of communication->culture. (look below .. internal meaning systems triggered by tokens, some of which are intersubjective, a lot of which are personal) touches on cognitive linguistics, culture theory, interpretive and discourse based anthro, metaphor, enculturation, communication (as "social and intrapsychic practice. it cannot be boiled down to a set of meanings 'conveyed' or 'embodied in' meanings" (10), semantics - theories of meaning (extensional [referential, black boxes mind] vs intensional [experienced sense]), relation of culture and psychology, identity, discourse. really well written. good analysis of interpretive anthro, including geertz, and postructuralist (critical?) anthro, which replaces analytic concept of 'culture' for 'discourse'. thoughts: wonder how the elaborations of semiotics might interface with 'symbol as just a communicative token triggering meanings [as system of concepts] with partial correspondence/intersubjectivity .. culture as the sum total of such intersubjective correspondences for a given group at a given time' .. that is "our - stock of symbols - words, rituals, physical signs" - seems to lump all types of symbols together, rather than acknowledging the peculiarities (including syntax) through which they signify .. what effect might this have? (not a big problem for his reconceptualization of culture, since it only seeks intersubjectivity .. which leaves room for a lot) problem: where's the account of the alternative approach? maybe email writer.. AU - Linger, Daniel PY - 1994/// UR - http://www.jstor.org/stable/640402 ER -