Throughout my completion of the
reading for tomorrows class period I found myself confused consistently. Some of the ideas in the reading resonated
with me, even if I do not fully understand them yet. But upon deeper thought I can
try to break down parts of hat Habermas is trying to say. One quote that made me ponder was an idea
from Daniel Bell. The concept is that
the “crises of the developed societies of the west are to be traced back to a
split between culture and society.
Modernist Culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the
life-world is infected by modernism.” The
idea of the spit between culture and society keeps me questioning what drew the
line? What itself is the actual split of
society and culture?
If they are split,
then can you be a part of one but not the other? Or are they just no longer a
part of the same category? As I sift
through my ideas about it, I question the distinct differences between the
two. Society does have classes, but
culture does not. Basic culture doesn’t require
a societal status for one to engage.
Culture has a rich and positive history, on the other hand society has a
dark history. At least for myself, the
connotations behind the two words is where you see the difference. Culture is celebrated, society is not. In my mind that is a distinct enough
difference for there to be a split between the two. In the west, we have prioritized
one over the other, we want to feel important within our society, we don’t care
if we are cultured anymore. Which
creates a huge issue with self-identify in the world today. Why is nobody
satisfied? Were we promised a life more spectacular than the one we see today?
Comments
Post a Comment