Aesthetics and Anthropology
S ask in our continued private discussion if I might be following in the footsteps of Fichte:
I’m not sure that this project is a ‘philosophical’ one in the sense that you wish to categorize and respond to it, although it is possible that there are certain assumed essentials that influence my choice of parameters. In essence, I find myself in process of expanding several of my own theories of culture, which I use as a distinct label for certain sets of behaviors which is often inclusive of religious ones, which recognizes the political reasons for the usage and transference of cultural ‘memes.’ In this sense, what I am attempting is a simple extension of the anthropolological project, which may also suffer from an ability to answer the question ‘why?’ (although many anthropologists say it is conceived as an alternative to the missionary project which preceded it).
When persons or communities with different norms come in contact with each other and a certain superiority of values, culture, and peoples is often assumed — and even in the two traditional ‘schools’ mentioned (anthropologocial and missionary) each assumes the superiority of its own approach.
In these inquiry I attempt to assume nothing about human ‘essence,’ except that it is a frequent concern among cultural groups and my ‘aesthetics’ is an attempt to make use of an expanded set of tools in formulating these cultural theories — both observation of persons in the process of cultural transmission, their reporting on these experiences, and my personal experience with similar types. Perhaps this is closest to Geertz with possible accommodation for methods which include one’s own conscious awareness within the scope of investigation.
Why do I assume this is useful and do I assume a ‘superiority’ in my own approach? I do tend to find the ideal of social science as a well-defined set of inquires limited to set of observable and replicable phenomena so in this sense I believe the essential empirical limitation of my pursuit is necessary to achieve the ends I state — in this case I believe I am quite far from any of the German idealists, which find constantly begging all essential questions.
As such I am not attempting to ‘prove’ anything, merely provide a descriptive apparatus to better capture the group dynamics of humans — of which the inclusions of ‘religious’ and ‘artistic’ elements seem to be an essential part of what separates them from the animals.
Consequently, ‘utility’ is described narrowly as what features of these elements contribute to a ‘better’ group dynamic, accommodating standard definitions for the ‘good’ including ‘larger,’ ‘faster,’ ‘lasting,’ and with a higher degree of happiness. Whether or not any of these standard definitions are actually the Good is not a question currently considered, nor included in the ‘aesthetics’ I offer.
Perhaps there is something here related to Fichte, but I do not know it.
