I know I shouldn't do it but, for some reason, I can't help myself.

I was trawling through a forum discussing Sally Pearson's disqualification in Delhi and, predictably enough, the legitimate discussion was quickly derailed by a slanging match between nasty Aussies and equally nasty poms. It was a comment from the latter that, for some bizarre reason, cut me deep and got me thinking about this thread.

The bitter poster posited that all the Australians in London should have just stayed in that "cultural void of a dustbowl they call a country". The dustbowl I can take, but "cultural void"?

It got me thinking. Do we have too narrow a view of "culture"? We Aussies have yet to produce a Shakespeare or a Dickens; we have yet to have our da Vinci or Michelangelo and we are still waiting for our Beethovens and Mozarts. Does that make us a "cultural void"?

I have been to many developed and underdeveloped countries in my short life, and haven't been able to find a "cultural void" yet. Sure, they serve chips with curry in England and call it "Indian"; they twist a bit of barbed wire around a pole in various countries and call it "art". Hardly prizeworthy. But it's culture. It's what people value and enjoy. It's what people contribute to the world.

My point is that, if we narrow our definitions of "culture" down too much, we miss out on an awful lot. If we travel with open eyes and open minds, perhaps we can appreciate what we see and realise that there really is no such thing as a "cultural void".

Your thoughts?

Any excuse that can be swung to your benefit nowadays falls into the category of culture.

A Pom calling Australia a cultural void??

Pffff, hypocritical mongrel!

This country has got 40 000+ years of amazing culture – much longer and every bit as amazing as that of Britain over its entire history of human occupation…… and a couple of hundred years of a bastardised form of British-cum-multicultural cultural confUUUUsion!

Now, of course this pompous Pom wouldn't even think of Australia’s Aboriginal cultural history. He’s just looking at the present…. and…um ……maybe he's not that far off the mark afterall! ( :>|

Culture is a subjective thing. The right amount of culture is also subjective. We like our interesting foreign foods, but dislike misogynist elements of the more retrograde cultures. We like colour and diversity, but dislike previous conflicts being brought here.

I wouldnt read too much into what an English sports fan says, they're a bit one-eyed about Britain being great again sometime soonish. In this day and age, it shouldnt be too difficult to watch a race replay and see who jumped the gun. Another week of this tripe polluting the airwaves, any bets on what's going to collapse next?

According to Raymond Williams Culture is one of the most difficult to define words in our language. According to one Georg Lukacs “culture (as distinct from civilization) comprises the ensemble of valuable products and abilities that are dispensable in relation to the immediate maintenance of life”. Culture designates that abstract sphere of charms, alarms and conventions with which we are infatuated; a vast emporia, infinitely stocked with the curiosities that structure our social intercourse (including religion), yet from which, nonetheless, we conceive ourselves sufficiently removed as to be critical of it.
That's the fascinating thing; culture structures us, yet we (ostensibly) transcend it.
Of course our culture now is increasingly global and the silly pom is confusing a rich cultural heritage with the impoverished present. They still have the old buildings, parchment and statuary, but English culture is today no better than ours, in fact they're the same: awash with popular amusements produced for mass-consumption. The Big Mac is a global icon of modern culture, the coin of the culture industry, in which commodities are designed to have universal appeal, devoid of anything distinctive--staples--indeed more or less "tasteless" by design. Such commodified culture neither tantalises nor revolts, thus casting the widest possible net.
Well, that's the elitist critique of culture in a nutshell. Culture is the fodder that bovine humanity is fattened on..

HI folks.... *back from the sin bin* :)

Ludwig.... you say:

A Pom calling Australia a cultural void??
Pffff, hypocritical mongrel!

My 2nd line for that would be this "weep... what a tragedy when poms can't even see how close to cultural oblivion and the dustbin of life they themselves are"

CULTURE is.... those things we do which we all recognize as being 'normal' and 'appropriate' in social intercourse.

This is 100% true for a tribe, but becoming less true of nations due to the invasion of certain political elements who are intent on destroying any sense of 'common culture' which may exist.
They are imposing 'multi' culturalism on us.

But within any of the identifiable cultures...the main premise holds true. (see heading above)

-We shake hands when we meet strangers or those we've not seen for a while. (we don't bow or rub noses)
-We insult people in order to show them we love them "Ow ya going ya-old bastard"
-We speak 'English'
-We support the underdog.

Our culture can also be defined by what we DON'T do..(which some others do)

-We do 'not'...marry our cousins.
-We do 'not' allow marriage of old men to young female children.

There are many others but the curious thing is.. we are not AWARE of most of this..we just 'do' it...'live' it.

So there.

Culture is a nebulous concept yet it defines us. Throughout history it is culture that has provided the security of the 'tribe' and provided identity.

The outward manifestations of culture - dance, music, literature, food and costume are all symbols of something deeper - that sense of connection and identity. Maslow knew what he was on about with higher order needs such as kinship.

Some cultures are very colourful and rich others less so outwardly, but nonetheless just as important. It is odd the English comment was to refer to a 'void' when in fact many Australians in the early days were of English heritage. Even Australia's convict history defines us and has contributed to our culture of egalitarianism, easy going nature, disposal of a strict class system and sympathy for the underdog. Attitudes also define culture.

More importantly what about the thousands of years of Indigenous culture.

We can live side by side with other cultures in perfect harmony while still identifying heavily with our own. The problems arise when there is a conflict of culture in attitude that might cross over and threaten those norms. Sometimes those threats are only imagined rather than real, but the fear is still the same.

As Pelican points out, culture, we assume, provides a sense of connection and identity.
As Squeers points out, our globalised version increasingly seems to reflect our lack of connection and identity, He is spot on that the homogeneous nature of western mass-consumption and popular amusements have transformed the material and spiritual landscape into one devoid of any genuine commonality with one's kinship and heritage.

Wow...Australians discussing what they think culture is?? LOL .. pure comedy..!!

Dear Rainier,
I'm a pom.
Why don't you edify us as to what culture is. I could use a laugh too!

Even funnier, a pom discussing culture with straylans..!

Squeers, forgot to ask, is your name Bruce? LOL

Yes Rainier,

Do tell....
I myself am a retired Belgian detective (with a cultured moustache)...What made you think I'm Australian?

I work with New Zealanders, French, English, African, Indian, Nepalese,chinese, Croatian, Korean, Canadian etc etc.

We respect each other for our diversity (culture). It is only when you work with so many nationalities that you realise that Australia does have a "culture" - albiet hard to define at times.

If only we could be as young children whose eyes have not been clouded by the judgements of their parents.

Hi Otokonoko

Many of our descendants are from the UK and Europe: relatives.

The 'Poms' who have stayed and resided in the UK are talking off the top of their heads ie we are a new country compared to the country many of our anscestors originated and had built for centuries.

Yes, it will all take time to develop our culture. Time will be the key factor along with effective integration, boosting the economy and supporting people who tap into their talents and skills.

Interestingly, it is the 'Poms' who greatly enjoy visiting here on holidays and many wish to reside in Oz when older, [may be to address their arthritis conditions]!

It is illogical for people residing in older countries to degrade a newer country's people and way of life.

We naturally have a long way to go......

Well ok, since you both are so intrigued with what I think culture is.
(Perhaps, I suspect to only to pull it apart and disagree)

• Culture is that embarrassing moment when you realize you are the only one in the room who does not get the joke.

• Culture is pretending to be retired Belgian detective with a cultured moustache on an online forum full of real Belgian detectives pretending to be Australians. LOL

• Culture is being able to connect and respect the belief of people not of your own culture and not brag about it every time someone asks you if you know someone from “this or that” - 'culture'.

• Culture is agreeing with the general opinion that Tony Abbott is a bogon and that we should be ever so careful not to ever elect a PM with such an irritating voice (I guess this last one can be applied to both of them)

• Culture is being culturally competent (or having the ability to recognise that you need to be) in a wide range of human environments that you might find yourself in.

• Culture is those beliefs and customs passed down through generations that tell us about how we belong to each. Any culture that professes exclusivity will not be around for long. See cultural competency above.

Finally, if we truly knew the real value of this word we would be cultured enough not to give it so much importance.

LOVE your post Rainier LOL!

Heyyyy....Searching :)....how do you greet the New Zealanders (assuming they are Maori) to you rub noses ?

and...the Indian..do you wiggle your head this way and that when you say hello and converse?

Dear Rainier,
very droll.
I made the mistake above of taking the question seriously and was on my way, if pushed, to designating culture a mental prison. Of course there are any number of courtly fools cavorting within the many mansions of culture who think it's all a bit of a lark, and they do afford levity and diversion in many quarters, where they're Wits among dunces; but in other, darker chambers, they're Dunces among Wits.

An interesting topic.

As I see it, the "cultural void of a dustbowl they call a country" comment to which Otokonoko took exception, alludes to the version of "culture" that has to do with what Sir Les Paterson termed "the Yartz".

To my specific knowledge there is a strong body of opinion in London that Sir Les represents all there is to know about Australian culture.

Which is, of course, desperately unfair.

Many have also heard of Dame Joan Sutherland, who lives in that other seething hive of culture, Switzerland. Quite a few will know those ambassadors of Australian radicalism and inventiveness, Germaine Greer and Clive James. But that's probably because they live there, write in their newspapers and appear on their telly a lot.

The more cultured Poms will be aware of the great Australian poet of the last century, Peter Porter. Who lived in, errr... England. From his early twenties until he died earlier this year. Wonder why.

We all, of course, revere our very own Nobel prizewinner, Patrick White. Don't we?

Although I suspect if you Googled "Voss". you would be far more likely to find yourself in the company of Brisbane Lions coach Michael, than Mr White's first literary success in Australia.

Then there are the Minogues, Kylie and Danii.

And Neighbours.

It's important also, not to forget that there are many of our sportspeople over there. Most of our senior cricketers play County cricket. A bunch of league players head North to play for Leeds or Warrington or whatever. Aussie soccer players abound, at all levels of the English leagues

Quite possibly, the sheer proliferation of these ambassadors of Australian culture provides some baseline from which we are measured.

Who knows?

But it has nothing to do with rubbing noses, Boaz.

Narrow? Nonexistent is more apt. Culture in OZ is mediocrity - the tall poppy syndrome – homogenization - standardization – risk aversion – copycat - we are a country that embodies the Peter Principle.

Pericles... yes it does.... along with many other things people do as 'culture'.

Culture?

Depends who one asks. Kerr (anthropologist) makes the point that culture can be broken-up into three kinds:

1. Technology, which transfers readily between societies.
2. Sociology, which will transfer slowly (decades)
3. Ideology, which is in entrenched.

Culture is a product of ecology and culture determines behaviour. Behavior tends to express itself deferentiately towards large (> 150 people) and small groups. Thus, we have culture in society ar large and culture in familial, workplace and other small groups, where relatonships tend be closer than say nation.

In many ways it is more like genus in science than say the periodic table. The boundaries are not always clear and there are various manifestions: e.g., organisational culture. Herein, the word "culture" generally requires an other word as qualifier.

Culture is far less than fully tangible yet it allows us to sensibly characterise phenomena in reasonable agreement with the manifest world.

Dear Oliver,
you do have an analytical mind (not necessarily a compliment).
What about an "ontology" of culture (which I'm working on)? And if you hold to your triad of cultural ologies, what about the etymology of culture--that is the problem of the scientistic view's being dependent upon an outmoded formalism, as well as contemptuous of ontology (these are more questions for me than you). Put another way, how much confidence do you have in "manifest" reality? Is it manifest (at all?) thanks to language, cognition or empiricism (or ontology), which all, according to poststructuralism, amount to the same thing.

<Culture is far less than fully tangible yet it allows us to sensibly characterise phenomena in reasonable agreement with the manifest world>

For me culture is far more a hindrance than a help-mate in characterising phenomena (suggesting an objectivity that isn't there) than it is a constant distortion within that enterprise. Moreover the scientistic enterprise implies a gross neglect of culture.

Squeersy

//For me culture is far more a hindrance than a help-mate in characterising phenomena//

Mate.. you've been reading wayyyyyy too much Marx and Engles and Marcuse ..... take a deep breath.

"Culture" is what is... and "characterizing phenomena"...what the ? ? ?

For crying out loud.. get out more. Go tribal for a few weeks.... I recommend the Dayaks of Borneo..they'll sort out your idea of culture.

Your comment even betrays your own 'culture' where you assume that there is a non 'cultural' way of characterizing reality/phenomena...

Ideology is the one, that is the modern day culture.
The idea is to get blind drunk start a fight or two , piss on some ones window or door way, get a taxi ,spew all over the inside of the car, and when the driver grabs you by the ear to get you out of his car, you screem asault.

Dear Squeers,

Some people would say culture does not exist. I might agree with them. Others might say it does exist. Again I could agree. The term is used loosely and difinitively. Some aspects are objective and many others sujective. Mosaic tiles are said to be charactistic of high Roman first century high society... Both the Chinese and Anglo-Europeans used ploughs in the eleventh century yet because the English ploughs took eight oxen to pull it. Here, the ecology causes serfs to develop horizonal altruism for mutual survival: On the other hand, the Chinese farmers (not serfs) of that period were highly familial and competitive and uncooperative,owing largely to mobility and soft soil. Thus, we have the intermeashing of the objective and subjective in a rather haphazard manner, yet decernible trends can measured, even mathematically.

Will check back in a few days.