>"Why don't Japanese loot? Because it's not in their culture. How is that culture defined? An absence of looting."
immediately followed by:
>A better explanation may be structural factors: a robust system of laws that reinforce honesty, a strong police presence, and, ironically, active crime organizations.
how is that in any way different from the circular definition the writer just criticized?
which I think indicates the real problem with the 'culture' argument; it's not that it's circular, it's that it is vague, which is why the rest of the (detailed) article is actually quite informative.
One is circular, one proposes a social mechanism whereby looting will lead to negative consequences for the looter. I'm having a hard time seeing what you think is not different about those two things.
Those social mechanisms are a part of culture. I find it hard to conceive a definition of culture that does not include the systems of negative consequences that a society enforces.
Comments
>"Why don't Japanese loot? Because it's not in their culture. How is that culture defined? An absence of looting."
immediately followed by:
>A better explanation may be structural factors: a robust system of laws that reinforce honesty, a strong police presence, and, ironically, active crime organizations.
how is that in any way different from the circular definition the writer just criticized?
which I think indicates the real problem with the 'culture' argument; it's not that it's circular, it's that it is vague, which is why the rest of the (detailed) article is actually quite informative.
One is circular, one proposes a social mechanism whereby looting will lead to negative consequences for the looter. I'm having a hard time seeing what you think is not different about those two things.
Those social mechanisms are a part of culture. I find it hard to conceive a definition of culture that does not include the systems of negative consequences that a society enforces.