India/western Sociology

[dhu]

> > It is not so much about definitions as it is about
> > conceptualizations--cluster of concepts, which are part of some theory.
> > And
> > such a theory filters what you experience of.
> >
> > In the first case, it sounds like there is only one way of describing,
>or
> > like the rights-talk (or its variants) is the best way of describing.
> > Here,
> > the debate is not so much definitions, but to what extent theory of
>rights
> > does captures the experience of the natives? If one denies the
> > rights-talk,
> > one is not denying the phenomenon, that is, a coarse description
>competing
> > theories accept.
> >
> > Abt the second case. Surely the ragpicker's experience is different from
> > yours. Do your and his experiences share any common structures? Assuming
> > that a common structure is being shared, the only way to defend such a
> > possibility is linking it to 'collective culturality'.: again, people
> > resort
> > to their pet notions of what culture is.
> >
> > Idem for the third case.
> >
> > All these cases share one thing: does whatever is seen in some place
> > constitute culturality? Those who answer in the affirmative share this
> > claim
> > as well: every practice is cultural; and such claims do have nothing to
> > say
> > about cultural differences, except that cultural difference is a
> > difference
> > in beliefs. The explanatory relation between practice and belief is
> > defensible only within the ambit of semitic theologies.
> >
> > Best,
> > Reddy, V.