Does Every Living Thing Have a Culture?
A View From Imanishi Kinji’s Concept of Acting Subjectivity
The simple definition of “culture” is easy. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines “culture” as (1) “the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time” or (2) “the attitudes, behavior, opinions, etc. of a particular group of people within society.”
However, such definitions do not get us very far.
Recent trends in various fields tend to understand culture in a broader sense and to attribute a culture to different species. Scientists look for evidence of animal culture by observing, for example, feeding behavior, vocalizations, behavior toward other species, sexuality, or migration patterns.
What they observe is often called a cultural pattern, cultural element, or, among other expressions, cultural behavior, showing a level of caution by scientist to fully use the word “culture.”
Such caution is also a warning pointing to a simple fact: what allows us to consider an animal pattern as evidence of culture is precisely the definition we humans have given to the word “culture.”
If some scientists argue that all living things have culture according to our current definition of culture, the criticism of such a view increase an equal amount.
In fact, it can be argued that this demand for linguistic evolution also reflects the human context, since it is also the result of the environmental crisis and comes from a human concern.
Imanishi Kinji Answer to the Question
In previous posts I presented some views of the biologist and ecologist Imanishi Kinji (1902–1992). You can take a look at them using the links above.
An interesting focal point in Imanishi’s work is what is required for a culture to develop. He poses the questions as follows:
Is it enough to be a living being to develop a culture? If not, what does a living being need to develop a culture in the narrow sense?