Part 2

Part II: Components of Culture

Chaw'se is the Sierra Miwok name for Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park, in Volcano. The overarching importance of the site is the large collection of bedrock grinding holes which is, of course, central to the acorn as a source of food in California. But nearby streams yielded fish and the encompassing forest yielded deer. It was a richly endowed environment. In the meadows, we can see replicas of the conical houses made of stacked and lashed long bark planks, taken from large pine and fir trees. There are also tall columnar granaries where acorns were stored. In the museum, there is a fine collection of dance regalia and instruments, signifying aspects of the ritual culture possessed by these people. There are also beautifully woven baskets and finely designed bows, arrows, and other elements of their material arts. If we are lucky enough to visit during a "Big Time," we may even hear traditional stories and see dances as well as athletic games.

While every one of California's more than one hundred tribes and tribelets possessed unique socio-cultural features and lived in different ecological niches, providing diverse resources, there still remain broad generalizations that are possible. These generalizations stem from the common relationship of these societies to hunter-gatherer cultures and traditions. What I propose to do here is to paint this broad picture of the components of culture. Afterwards, we will move in the opposing direction and examine several tribes in considerable detail, seeing how differences arose out of environments, social conditions, and long-standing traditions.

Before proceeding, however, there are several very general points to be made and these will help to orient the overall discussion of the components of culture. What is culture? What are typical components of culture? What factors tend toward unification of human cultures? What factors tend toward diversification and uniqueness? Let us try to answer some of these questions before we proceed.

Society and Culture

It has long been said that humans are "social animals." What we mean by this is precisely what we can observe. Like other animals, humans are observable objects that can be systematically described by biology. Like many other animals, however, humans behave in repeating patterns of interaction with other humans which can also be systematically described. Adult male and female humans dwell together and raise children cooperatively. While all humans may perform certain tasks in more-or-less the same ways, throughout a period of time, some will perform special tasks and share the results with others. When a human dies, others close to it pass through a grieving behavior and dispose of the body in regular ways. What we mean by society, then, is the complex of relationships or mutual behaviors that humans engage in with each other. These are described systematically by social scientists.

While animals other than humans are "social" in the sense defined, here, humans are uniquely social in that they possess cultures. But what does this mean? The point is that humans have to learn how to live in society and this is because human societies are much more complex than instinctive societies. Bees are social in the sense that an observer can distinguish bees performing different tasks and cooperating with each other toward what seem to be common ends. Our concept of bees, however, does not include the notion that bees have to learn their social roles and purposes. Culture, then, is the fabric of learning that stands in back of and sustains a human society. Since human societies are quite complex and are observably quite different from one another, we judge that they belong to quite different cultures. One approach is simply to observe diverse societies and describe them for posterity. A more interesting approach, however, is to develop a picture of each culture and to be in a position to understand why certain social behaviors are preferred and maintained. (Kroeber, 1948; ch. 1)

In a certain society, we may observe that newly born babies are always taken to a church where they meet other members of their extended families and friends and have the church ritualist sprinkle water on the baby in a sacred manner. The behavior can be seen over and over and it is obviously "social" behavior as opposed to "biological." What cultural studies seeks to tell us is why parents do this in a particular society. How do they learn this behavior? And what values or purposes do they have in mind when they perform this way? It is, in fact, a form of "dedication" ceremony that has many interesting effects. It may involve giving a name in a sacred manner; it may involve establishing the child's relationship with spiritual powers; and it may also involve a practical commitment by some other person to accept responsibility for the child's practical or spiritual needs if the parents should die or otherwise be unable to carry these out. What is important to note is that these reasons are not, in themselves, part of observable social behavior but, rather, lie behind it. In this simplified sense, then, culture is a matrix in which society develops. It belongs more to the mental development of humans than to their physical or biological development. Its elements may be spoken through language or demonstrated through example or elevated before us in symbols. All of these are important clues in cultural studies.

Components of Culture

Humans have specific needs relating to their survival. For instance, all humans behave in observable ways to procure foods. Some of these behaviors are overtly social, like cooperative hunting. But even when individuals engage in the food quest, it is almost always in the context of social experience, that is, a learned behavior. Adults teach their children what food resources are reliable and how or when to obtain them. The food quest is a component of every human culture.

At the same time, the specific food resources available to a people and, consequently, entering into the people's shared knowledge can vary widely from one region of human habitation to another. One specific food culture can be very different from another because each borrows on the availability of edible materials in its region. More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that, even when a food resource is available in each of two regions, it may enter the food cultures in quite different ways. Why this is the case may be very difficult or even impossible to explain. On obvious example, perhaps, is people's diverse sentiments about eating the human species itself --- cannibalism, which in certain parts of the world is even broken down into such details as whether one will eat only people of different tribes or will eat of one's own.

There are other areas of similarity in human cultures. All humans are tool makers and tool users, for instance. Paleontologists actually use tool making as one of the horizons for development from homonid to human. Thus, humans utilize various material objects in their environment in the making of tools. This, too, is learned behavior. So we can examine the specific kinds of tools made in order to discover attributes of culture. The making of tools brings cultures together but the specifications of tool designs, uses, and decorations demonstrates their differences.

We have already suggested that society is a common human possession, but societies also differ. Specific human attributes lead to common cultural components that cause certain elements to occur in virtually all societies, of course. At birth, humans are vulnerable and they remain vulnerable for a long period of time. All human societies, then, provide for child support and development. Perhaps the parents remain together and provide support; perhaps a lone mother lives with an extended family in which the older generation accepts child-rearing responsibilities; but perhaps there is even a systematic arrangement for adopting children out to other members of a society. Whatever culture dictates, it is followed in a particular society more often than not.

Other social institutions exist as well. Children must learn; children must become adults; adults must marry (or at least arrange for cohabitation and procreation); adults must organize the sharing of resources and acceptance of other responsibilities; and finally, old people must die. All of these events lie along the human path from birth to death and arise out of biological necessity. Thus, all cultural understanding must deal with these in some way by configuring society in some way to meet their needs. The presence of these institutions is not surprising; what is surprising is the variety of ways in which cultures come together to solve the basic problems.

Yet another area of social behavior is human reverance for the spiritual world and this usually can be identified by human's regard for sacred things and by their practices of ritual activity. Niether biology nor physical necessity explain this; yet we find it in almost all societies. It is, thus, an almost purely cultural attribute of society; that is, it comes almost purely out of people's mental and emotional states. It is, as psychoanalyst Carl Jung suggested, an attribute of the human's "collective unconscious." It is no surprise, then, that the divergence of concepts of the sacred and of patterns of ritual is the greatest in comparative cultural studies. What is socially most comparable is the institution itself and the ways in which the institution is supported by specific human roles or stations.

Finally, we should not miss stories, songs, and dances. All humans seem to need entertainment as a part of social intercourse. In fact, entertainment may be a crucial way in which humans collectively reassure each other about their emotional bonds and mutual reliability. They also provide opportunities for symbolism which reinforce fundamental cultural ideas. They may even do a certain amount of instruction, especially moral instruction in the ways of correct behavior. Repeating the general rule one last time, the occurrence of these in a culture as a regular component is no surprise. Nevertheless, local customs, traditions, and idiosyncracies may cause the specific to diverge substantially. This is probably less likely in the matter of entertainment than it is in the matter of spiritualism, however; because entertainment embraces a society's cultural roots more comprehensively. It is, in this sense, easier for foreign peoples to come together through entertainment than it is through religion. They are, in fact, more likely to fight over religion; whereas, I know of no case where one people has fought another over their specific culture of entertainment.

In conclusion, the general picture we should have of California's indigenous people is that of life directly and intelligently connected with the environment, so thoroughly integrated socially as to reveal the presence of complex cultural characteristics. Thus, the immediate features of geography determined their being far more than genetic roots. Only in languages and, thus perhaps also, in narratives did those roots exercise some counter-influence.

In this section, we will survey the distinctive cultural components that one can find throughout California. The particular components have already been mentioned, by way of illustration. They are the quest for food, utilization of other material resources, the maintenance of social order, spiritualism and shamanism, and narrative traditions. It is by no means the case that all California cultures shared a common approach to these issues; however, because of their very basic nature, it is the case that all cultures faced these issues in some way. In considering these cultural components, there are some broad generalizations that we can make; and by creating a general picture of California in the present section, we can avoid needless repetition, later, when we discuss some particular cultures and explore the details of their unique situations.

Bibliography

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology, Revised Edition (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1948)