Abstract.
To see and understand a culture one must move below the surface of things from one's own perspective to the inside as seen and understood from the position of the other. Experience of and in a culture can aid this movement to the inside. Cultural informants, broadly defined, can help interpret things observed, and not observed . . . such that useful insights are confirmed or uncovered for the observer.Over ten years ago, I proposed
a model for penetrating a culture beyond its surfaces and how it might be used to structure thinking and discussion in cultural studies. Steps involved in thinking and discussion are finding more precise language for phenomena (defining), discovering why people do what they do (explaining), and discerning what their behavior means for them (understanding). As observer-informant interchanges produce better stereotypes using these steps, new formulations may change the levels and types of generalization. The object of using models like the one proposed and the suggested inquiry procedure is to realize fresh interpretations of cultural phenomena in and beyond the classroom.I wish to revisit this model.
Penetration into the culture is a function of the depth of information and insights the observer has access to. What may sometimes be tacit and difficult to articulate can be loosened from its embeddedness by more careful observation and persistent inquiry. Some of the most useful but most difficult roots of behavior lie at the core, in strata of bedrock as it were, not readily available even to the most astute observers and insiders. What is needed is more information and knowledge, or perhaps dramatic events, to shake loose the unconscious and inarticulate ground. With these, and perhaps in crisis times, what a person or a people characteristically does can be more easily seen, and why they do it may be more easily understood.
The above model assumes there are behaviors and products, or artifacts, of a people that we can observe and describe. Of these, there are some that we can readily explain; others can be explained with the help of those who are informed, or are themselves insiders. As a product of interaction, the meanings given by insiders in their words can help us understand why they do what they do.
There are, no doubt, behaviors and products we cannot see clearly, or do not see at all. Perhaps even resident natives cannot see some things about themselves clearly or at all. And there are interpretations that elude even the most able and embedded resident native, leaving the cultural observer with but surface observations, unmediated insights, and best conjectures.Objections to the use of the word _penetration_ and the up-down, height-depth language/visualization aside, the model still works for me personally.
The article was written while residing outside my own country and culture, and for most of the past ten plus years, I have continued living abroad. I am a student of culture and cultures (my focus is ways of living versus the study of high culture, art, literature, etc.). Sometimes the insights I get are dramatic and at other times mundane. So be they.
More importantly today, the model suggests greater care should be taken in the current discourse about huge groups of people living their particular and unique mores seemingly in thorough opposition to our own (your _own_ being yours and not this writer's).
We need better ways of stereotyping* as we cope with violations of the "live, let live" injunction I recently wrote about.
---
* For a copy of the unpublished paper from which this statement and summary derive, please request.
