This document discusses key concepts in anthropology and sociology, including culture, society, and politics. It defines culture as learned, symbolic, integrated, shared, and all-encompassing. Sociologists use three theoretical approaches to study society: structural-functionalism, which views society as a system that promotes stability; social-conflict theory, which focuses on inequality and change; and symbolic interactionism, which sees society as produced through everyday interactions. The document also discusses ethnocentrism, viewing one's own culture as superior, and cultural relativism, understanding cultures in their own contexts.

1. Understanding the Concepts of Culture, Society, and Politics
Aspects of Culture
The notion of culture presents a complex portrait of humanity. Anthropology regards
culture as learned, symbolic, integrated, shared, and all encompassing (Tylor 1871).
 It is learned because culture is acquired by being born into a particular society in
the process of enculturation, as anthropologists would say, or socialization, as
sociologists would explain. Through language, the cultural traits of society are
passed on to younger members in the process of growing up and through teaching.
 Culture is symbolic in the sense that it renders meanings to what people do.
Beliefs, religion, rituals, myths, dances, performances, music, artworks, sense of
taste, education, innovations, identity, ethnicity, and so on, are meaningful human
expressions of what people do and how they act.
 The systems of meanings and many other facets of culture such as kindred,
religion, economic activities, inheritance, and political process, do not function in
isolation but as an integrated whole that makes society work. Furthermore, these
varying systems of meanings, relations, and processes are shared within a group
of people rendering culture bounded to those who seek a sense of belonging to
the same society.
 Since culture is shared within exclusive domains of social relations, societies
operate differently from each other leading to cultural variations. Even as culture
is bounded, it does not mean that there are no variations in how people act and
relate with each other within a given system of their respective societies. On the
contrary, the same society can be broadly diverse wherein people, for example,
profess connections to each other yet practice different religion, values, or gender
relations. Furthermore, societies do not always exist independently from each
other.
 Around the world, people as members of their own societies establish connections
with each other and form relationship guided by their respective cultural practices
and values. These complex relations underscore the all-encompassing nature of
culture as it covers every feature of humanity. Edward Tylor, one of the founders
of modern anthropology, characterize culture as a “complex whole which
encompasses beliefs, practices, traits, values, attitudes, laws, norms, artifacts,
symbols, knowledge, and everything that a person learns and shares as a member
of society” (Tylor 1871).
 To further understand culture, it is important not to forget the biological dimensions
of being human. The capacity of a person to organize his or her own society and
form cultural systems is made possible by the ability of humans to imagine and
execute what they can do. Through the power of their brains, humans possess a
considerable degree of awareness and knowledge of what they can achieve. At
the same time, the natural world casts limitation as well as opportunities for
humans in terms of realizing how else they can organize their societies and form
their cultures. For instance, some societies harness resources on flatlands or high
up in the mountains while others organize their lives around the seas. These

2. undertakings indicate that the specific environment in which people live also shape
human culture in the same way that culture shapes how people reshape nature.
Sociological Approaches to the Study of Society
Sociologists use three theoretical approaches: the structural-functional approach, the
social-conflict approach, and the symbolic-interaction approach. A theoretical approach
is a basic image of society that guides thinking and research (Macionis 2012: 12)
Structural-Functional Approach
Structural-functionalists view society as a “complex system whose parts work
together to promote solidarity and stability” (Macionis 2012: 12). It involves an
analysis of social structure, “any relatively stable pattern of social behavior. Social
structure gives our lives shape—in families, the workplace, the classroom, the
community.” The approach seeks to identify a structure’s social functions, or “the
consequences of any social pattern for the operation of society as a whole” (Ibid). It is an
approach that is influenced by the ideas of Auguste Comte (1798–1857) who coined the
term sociology in 1838, and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Robert K. Merton (1910–2003)
also made significant contributions by distinguishing between “manifest functions, the
recognized and intended consequences of any social pattern, and latent functions, the
unrecognized and unintended consequences of any social pattern. He also recognized
social dysfunction, any social pattern that may disrupt the operation of society”
(Macionis 2012:13).
Social-Conflict Approach
The social-conflict approach sees society as an “arena of inequality that generates
conflict and change” (Macionis 2012: 13). It therefore highlights inequality and change.
In contrast to the structural-functionalist approach, it does not see the social structure as
promoting the smooth operation of society. Instead, it focuses on how social patterns
benefit the dominant groups in society. Typically, “people on top try to protect their
privileges while the disadvantaged try to gain more for themselves” (Ibid).
Symbolic-Interaction Approach
The symbolic-interaction approach views sees society as the “product of the everyday
interactions of individuals” (Macionis 2012: 16). Human beings live in a world of
symbols. In the process of social interaction, they attach meaning to everything.
Macro and Micro Levels of Analysis
It should be noted that the Structural-Functional and Social-Conflict Approaches have a
macro-level orientation, or a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a
whole. In contrast, the Symbolic-Interaction Approach uses a micro-level orientation, a
close-up focus on social interaction in specific situations (Macionis 2012: 16).

3. Ethnocentrism
When people find cultural practices and values not their own as disturbing and
threatening, that can be regarded as ethnocentrism. A literal meaning of ethnocentrism
is the regard that one’s own culture and society is the center of everything and therefore
far more superior than others (Kottak 2012: 39; Eriksen 2001:7). It is understandable that
people laud and hold importance to the cultural values that were taught them by their
parents, elders, and other institutions of their society. The problem is when a person or
groups of people regard their own society’s set of cultural values as the only agreeable,
acceptable, and highly respectable set of convictions. Such a perspective can harden into
chauvinism, a position that everything about the other culture is wrong, unreasonable,
detestable, and even wicked. From this perspective, the practices and institutions of
people from other societies are regarded as inferior, less intelligent, and even vicious. An
ethnocentric attitude can be an obstacle to understanding each other culture and foster
tensions within or between societies.
Cultural Relativism
The concept of cultural relativism underscores the idea that the culture in every society
should be understood and regarded on its own terms. Societies are qualitatively different
from one another, such that each one has its own “unique inner logic” (Eriksen 2001: 14).
Cultural traits can only be known and valued in the context of the society by which they
emerge and are practiced. Cultural relativism promotes the idea that a society has to be
viewed from the inside so that inner logic can be better explained. A society’s idea of a
good life will not likely be shared by another society that interprets the notion of “good”
from a sharply different social perspective. In other words, each society has a different
yardstick in appreciating the value of its own cultural trait. Cultural relativism, however,
cannot be regarded as the flip side of ethnocentrism. The concept of cultural relativism is
more analytical and methodological rather than being a moral principle. Anthropologists
apply the concept of cultural relativity in investigating and comparing societies without
declaring one being better or more preferable to the other.
Moreover, appreciating and accepting the uniqueness of one society’s cultural trait does
not mean that universal human moral traits of right or wrong no longer apply. For instance,
cultural traits that promote subjugation of women by hurting or killing them do not
necessarily mean that they are right by virtue of one society’s inner logic. There are
underlying patterns of human cultural traits that are common and universally acceptable
to humanity. The violent subjugation and elimination of human life or traits are broadly
unacceptable to the rest of humanity. Through a relativist approach consciously balanced
by a universalist understanding of what is humanely acceptable, the dangers of
ethnocentrism can be addressed.