Warwick Group 3 Response to Helsinki Group A: “Culture”

Thanks for the amusing video – here’s another image to analyse: Spitting is forbidden for Native Americans! We think the humorous interplay of the cultural symbols on display here is very interesting. What do you think??

As a question of whether such behaviour in the video is indeed “cultural”, it seems as if there is a difference, in English at least, between the words “cultural” and “cultured”. To be cultured implies an adherence to a socially-acceptable set of values and morals, whereas the word cultural merely denotes something to do with a culture in general.

In this case, the spitting can therefore be considered cultural, even if this is not cultured. The act itself confirms a disobedience towards the prevailing behavioural standards accepted by most of society, so is inherently cultural, even if it is cultural deviancy.

Within certain subcultures, though, spitting is considered acceptable, such as on the football or baseball field. For other groups, particularly adolescents, spitting in public can be viewed as a marker of cultural identity, symbolizing a rejection of normative values and giving a communal sense of belonging within a subcultural group at odds with the dominant culture.

However, the act of spitting as a culturally-embedded performance varies from culture to culture. According to the following report (http://www.renmenbi.com/spitting-culture), spitting is an everyday and accepted occurrence in China. This brings us onto the broader transcultural questions of manners and etiquette.


As much as the spitting video makes fun of social convention, etiquette to too great a degree can seem stuffy and similarly comical:

With so many differences between acceptable behaviours, we wonder if there are many behaviours which are transculturally acceptable? Would there be any benefit to a standardized worldwide etiquette? It may stop some intercultural misunderstandings, but would it also be symptomatic of cultural imperialism?