Re: Problematizing Definitions

 Dear Mr. Zainab,

Theories of human rights are kind of watered down versions of natural rights theories of Christian Theology. Secular counterparts of such theories are founded in legal positivism. Theories founded in theology are more powerful than those founded in legal positivism, explanatorily speaking; legal positivism cant answer many problems: for example, one, with the help of gangs, can force others to obey their duties towards the rights subject , while, at the same time, disregarding one's duties towards others' rights subjects.  For more, check Balagangadhara: we shall not cease from exploration.

Surely, every theory has a domain of applicability. If the domain is of entire humans, then it is universal. Rights are universal insofar as one accepts the presuppositions of Christian Theology. Here, a progressive Indian intellectual may remonstrate that denying rights entails despotism or immorality: but that entailment is invalid, because one is denying a particular conceptualization, but not the phenomenon, or a set of em. Lesson is that a relative distinction between fact and phenomenon is made (S. Amsterdamski: Between metaphysics and Experience)


Krober and Kluckhohn in "Culture, a critical review of concepts and definitions" listed 160 definitions of cultures, definitions that are found in the literature theretofore. They also said: "... concepts have a way of coming to a dead end unless they are bound together in a testable theory. In anthropology at present we have plenty of definitions but too little theory"

Again, we need to distinguish identity and individuation: a) What is culture, or how is culture distinguished from every thing else? b) How one culture is distinguished from another culture?
Here, one may regurgitate postmodern criticism: cultures are not monolithic. Sure, I of yesterday am different from myself of today: yet we can talk about a particular human being that I am; and we can also talk about humans in general. Whenever we talk about something at object level, we presuppose macrolevel unity, as well as microlevel disunity. Any book on Identity and Individuation deals with these problems.

Lastly, it makes to talk about culture of elites, culture of masses, African culture, Western culture. So, is the difference between African and Western cultures of the same order that between mass and elite cultures? Is African culture on par with the culture of software folks? These are 
all mixed-category problems; which shows lack of theory, or lack of understanding what culture is. Definitely, we all have intuitive notions of what culture is: these are all presystematic concepts. Disputing such concepts is tantamount to disputing about tastes: that is, there is no terminus to such discussions, thats why 'culture' is essentially contested concept!  Whenever we hear of essentially contested concepts, it is a sign of not having a theory: a theory is not a set of definitions, nor a set of concepts, but a set of high level hypotheses/laws with intermediate and low-level consequences.

On 12/20/05, zainab@xxxxxxxxx < zainab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

a). Is there anything as universal rights? What constitutes universality?
b). How do we define culture? What acts constitute culturality?
c). What is the relationship between culture and lifestyles?