Essay: Anthropologists would want to work against the notion of culture

“The notion of culture . . despite a long usefulness, may now have become something anthropologists would want to work against . .`” (Abu-Lughod). Why would this be the case?
The Oxford dictionary defines anthropology as ‘the comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development’. By definition therefore, culture is central to anthropology. Nonetheless, the use of the term culture has brought forward a number of issues that might initiate a shift away from it. The concentration on culture, and naturally cultural difference, appropriates a fixed division between countries and people. Subsequently, a hierarchal relationship is generated; one culture is considered superior to the other.
The term culture inevitably involves the division of the other and the self, causing inequality between anthropologists and their subjects.  Upon analysis of another community, anthropologists will always judge the other culture based upon their own standards. This separation brings about a hierarchical relationship whereby the analysis results in the ‘self-congratulation’ of the anthropologist’s culture or the oppression of the subjects. It becomes impossible to avoid this unequal position since the subject of a study automatically assumes an inferior status (SAID).  To me, this implicates the issues of imperialism and colonialism that have been central to anthropological debate for many years. Anthropologists could be seen to accredit other cultures as more primitive, and thus be attempting to assert their own western ideals upon non-western cultures.
However, it may be acceptable for western-anthropologists to embrace the notion of culture, despite its divisive nature. To avoid imperialism non westerners should study the non west, so that the other in the normal situation becomes the self. However, this would bring about the blurring of the division between the self and the other. The other cannot totally assume the position of the self due to the wider historical background whereby the ethnic minority is usually considered the other. Consequently, anthropologists might not be able to gain sufficient distance in order to judge their culture objectively. Another idea might be the instillation of anti-colonial efforts, i.e. suggesting how non-western ideals are in fact superior to western ones (ABU). For example, ‘A Ghandian appeal to the greater spirituality of a Hindu India, compared with the materialism and violence of the West’. – (ABU) Nonetheless, the separation of the other and self still exist. Consequently, as do the hierarchies, although this time in an opposing direction.
One reason that anthropologists might be keen to emphasise the otherness of their subject is to give their discipline credibility. (ABU) The redundant labelling of anthropology has provoked anthropologists to concentrate on cultural difference so as to differentiate themselves from sociologists and historians. Ultimately, however, I believe that the dichotomy of the self and the other emphasises cultural difference and introduces a hierarchical relationship.
Further to this, the use of the term culture promotes a unified, coherent and absolute image. In actuality, there is much variation within cultures resulting from migration. This is not simply a product of the 20th and 21st century but has existed for centuries. I think that the boundedness of culture is an idealistic and essentialist concept that generates simplification and stereotypes of countries. For instance, the Arab is often depicted as ‘a camel-riding nomad’ (SAID). The failure to acknowledge the dynamism of culture creates an untruthful frozen portrayal of that country. According to James Clifford ‘Culture does not hold still for their portraits.’
On the other hand, the word culture is vital as it features at the core of anthropology. The eradication of the term weakens the subjects esteem since it suggests that the entire discipline is built upon a false notion. Nevertheless, perhaps it is necessary to deconstruct the discipline so that in the long run the subject has greater scope for reputability.
The study of culture often propagates the study of cultural difference. This focus on contrast, can promote nationalism, whereby cultural difference is substituted for race as the justification for xenophobia. ‘Cultural fundamentalism, sees humanity as composed of a multiplicity of distinct cultures which are incommensurable.’ By using the term culture, I conceive that you enforce imaginary barriers between countries by reason of a supposed homogenous and fixed difference.
The use of the term culture brings about a lack of neutrality; this is not necessarily detrimental. In the attempt to gain the authoritative status of social scientists, anthropologists often assert a fictional objectivity to their ethnographies. These ethnographies will always be ‘inherently partial’ since everyone is a making of their own history. As a result, certain narratives of the subjects they study will always be excluded. I believe that anthropologists should openly discuss the impossibility of remaining completely detached from society. Anthropologist’s are able to acknowledge their own position through research of the historical links between their and their subject’s country. For instance, does their own country have political motives over the country of research? Take orientalism, whereby the US has blatant economic advantages from the encouragement of western ideals within the Middle East due to the existence of oil. Rather than try to avoid all issues associated with the term culture, maybe instead we need to acknowledge them according to the individual situation.
To conclude, I believe that it would be difficult to dispel the term culture completely from anthropology. Having said this, it is necessary to change the assumptions that it carries. Culture must be seen to be a dynamic process, displaying a constant fluidity. Given the variation found within countries, culture is a plural concept rather than a unitary phenomenon. You can talk of the cultures found within a country, yet still you must be conscious of the subcultures amid this. Anthropologists must make clear how they fit into the grander scheme by relating themselves to the historical background of their subject’s country. By bringing the issues into discussion you allow a wider interpretation of their ethnographies.