Since this study examines the Berekum religio-cultural contribution to nature conservation, it is also important to look at the concept of culture. The word ‗culture‘ was introduced into anthropology as a technical term by. Tylor (White and Dillingham, 1972, p. 21), who used it in the opening words of his widely read book Primitive Culture in 1871. Tylor saw culture as, ‗that complex whole, which includes beliefs, art, law, morals, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society‘ (quoted in White and Dillingham, 1972, p. 21). Storey (2001) cites William Raymond as having conceptualised the term ‗culture‘ in three different ways. First, it can be viewed as ‗a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development‘ (Storey, 2001, p. 1); secondly, it can be used to refer to ‗a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or a group‘ (Storey, 2001, p. 2); and third, it can be used to refer to ‗the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity‘ (Raymond, 1983, p. 90; quoted in Storey, 2001, p. 2).
Geertz (1973) thinks that we should try to see cultures, ‗not as organically unified or traditionally continuous but rather as negotiated, present processes‘ (Geertz, 1988, p. 273). He also quotes Kluckhohn as describing or defining culture in his book ‗Mirror for Man‘ in at least eleven different ways: (1) ‗the total way of life of a people‘; (2) ‗the social legacy the individual acquires from his group‘; (3) ‗a way of thinking, feeling, and believing‘; (4) ‗an abstraction from behaviour‘; (5) ‗a theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact behave‘; (6) ‗a store-house of pooled learning‘; (7) ‗a set of standardized orientations to recurrent problems‘; (8) ‗learned behaviour‘; (9) ‗a mechanism for the normative regulation of behaviour‘; (10) ‗a set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment and to other men‘; and (11) ‗a precipitate of history‘ (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Mugambi (1996, p. 32), however, sees culture as having six main pillars–politics, economics, ethics, aesthetics, kinship and religion.
Geertz considers Max Weber‘s view that ‗man is an animal suspended in a web of significance he himself has spun‘ (Geertz, 1973, p. 5) to be referring to the webs of culture, adding that the analysis of culture should not be conceived as ‗an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning‘
(Geertz, 1973, p. 5). This stems from his view that the concept of culture is ‗essentially a semiotic one‘ (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). What Geertz is saying is that cultural behaviours are symbolic–that is, they are inherent or pregnant with meanings which have to be uncovered in order to appreciate what culture is all about. Mbiti (1991) characterises this as covering a broad range of things, manifesting itself in a peoples‘ art, literature, language, dance, music, drama; the style through which they build their houses and dress; the way they organise socially and politically; their religious ideas, ethics, moral and philosophy; the way their customs, economic life and institutions of people are structured and their values and ethic (Mbiti, 1991, p. 7).
Dogbe (2009, p. 101) says that the term ‗culture‘ brings to ‗mind many things including ideas, beliefs customs and practices‘, which cover areas such as ‗what life should be and should not be, the people`s judgement, inventions, languages, technology, art and craft, literature, music, ways of farming, building houses, storing and preparing food, weaving clothes and other things‘. Mugambi‘s, Mbiti‘s and Dogbe‘s descriptions of culture are very comprehensive, including almost all its essential elements–both the tangible or material (tools, machines, food, clothing, houses tools for leisure and entertainment) and the intangible (institutions for governing and maintaining law and order, belief systems, values, history, ideologies and concepts). Their descriptions also satisfy the various nuances that William Raymond suggests that the term culture covers.
According to Peter Sarpong–a renowned Ghanaian theologian and an authority on Akan culture–‗culture is the integrated sum-total of behavioural traits that have been learned, and […] passed on from one generation to another in an uninterrupted succession‘ (1974, p. vii). He quickly adds that ‗all the same, the transformation of culture cannot be so profound as to leave nothing of it‘, even though ‗culture is dynamic and never static‘ (1974, p. vii).
Gathogo (2009, p. 83) corroborates this when he argues that, ‗while cultural meanings may differ historically, it would however be erroneous to suggest that there is a complete break up in cultural meanings, as there is also continuity‘. Flolu (2009, p. 59) reiterates this, noting that all cultures are subjected to growth, change and development. One thing that emerges from the various definitions of culture is
that it is an important element in every society. In other words, culture is generic to humanity, as it is that which distinguishes one group of people from another.
Dogbe points out that culture determines ―what is needed and how to get it‖ in any given community. He argues further that: ‗the culture of a people serves to meet their needs for educating themselves, keeping healthy in mind and body, human reproduction to perpetuate the society, and for living longer through combating diseases and epidemics‘ (Dogbe, 2009, p. 103). This shows that it is culture that influences or directs members of a society to achieve their goals and aspirations. Dogbe (2009) also makes the important observation that there are some cultural objects that have unique characteristics which render them unsuitable for use in other cultural settings–for instance, some European clothes and houses are designed for cold winter weather, and are hence useless in countries that have tropical climates. The implication of this is that it is totally wrong for any group of people to impose their culturally grounded values and practices on others. This is in line with Tomlinson‘s criticism of ‗personal observation‘ methods, which tend to be paternalistic and presume that those in the West know the needs of other cultures better than the members of those cultures themselves do (quoted in Gathogo, 2009, p. 87). For Flolu, culture includes all forms of human endeavour that are purposeful and are meant to harmonise people with their environment (Flolu, 2009, p. 59). This makes the environment a key element in the content of a people‘s culture.
Religion is another important component of every culture, and as such cannot be ignored. Mbiti (1991, p.10) argues that religion ‗is by far the richest part of the African [people‘s] heritage‘. This is because religion is prevalent in all spheres of human life (Mugambi, 1996). That is, it shapes their cultures, their social life, their politics, and economics (Mbiti (1991, p.10).
White and Dillingham use their ‗theory of symboling‘ to explain the basis of culture (1972, p. 1f). They describe human beings as a ‗symboling‘ animal, and culture as the result of symboling. Symboling, according to them, is the ‗ability freely and arbitrarily to originate, determine, and bestow meaning upon things and events in the external world, and the ability to comprehend such meanings‘ (1972, p. 1). They thus argue that human beings and culture are an inseparable couplet (ibid., p. 9; see Flolu, 2009, p. 59). This assertion appears to be well grounded, for all the evidence points to the fact that culture is something that human beings have
‗created‘ for their own good. This confirms the old adage that ‗necessity is the mother of invention‘. In the words of White and Dillingham, ‗any organism will employ any means at hand to make life more secure, for such behavior has biological survival for the species‘(1972, p. 11).
Referring to human beings as the ‗product of revolution and also as a symboling animal‘, White and Dillingham (1972, p. 12) conclude that ‗when a symboling animal was produced by the natural biological process of evolution and revolution, culture came into being‘. In other words, their theory of the origin of culture is that ‗culture is the consequence of the ability to symbol‘ (ibid.).
White and Dillingham (1972) challenged the theory that cultural differences are due to biological differences in race, viewing this as, at best, an inference. The basis of their argument against it is that it is possible to present data to buttress an incorrect or unfounded proposition, and they appeal to the North American Indians to show this. They contend that, in terms of biology, all North American Indians are identical, but they differ sharply in their cultures (ibid. p.18). They also argued that ‗lower cultures‘ can be identified among the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid– the three major races of the world. They further buttress their position by arguing that culture is known to be dynamic, and for that reason, it is possible for a people from a lower culture to later develop their culture to a higher level. In other words, culture can vary over time (Asante, 1996, p. 5). For White and Dillingham (1972, p. 18), therefore, ‗there is no correlation between race and culture‘, and they conclude that ‗there is no direct evidence in support of a theory of biological superiority or biological difference in terms of inferiority and superiority in cultural capacity‘ (ibid., p. 19). With regard to differences in cultures due to space, White and Dillingham (1972) cautioned us against relying on the theory of environmental or geographic determinism, as this theory does not hold accurately in every case. They cite the case of the Eskimos and the Indians of Tierra del Fuego, who live in very similar environments but have very different cultures. They postulate that ‗habitat may permit certain things and prohibit certain others; there is still room for a great deal of variation‘ (ibid., p. 19).
The foregoing discussion can leave little doubt that there is significant debate over what the term ‗culture‘ refers to and how it evolved. It is no wonder that William Raymond describes culture as ‗one of the two or three most complicated
words in English Language‘ (Raymond, 1983, p. 87, quoted in Storey, 2001, p. 1). Culture, to borrow Storey`s words, may be seen as ‗an empty conceptual category, one which can be filled in a wide variety of often conflicting ways, depending on the context of use‘ (Storey, 2001, p. 1). This also suggests that the concept of culture is very broad, even among social anthropologists, and thus it is important to be clear about the context in which the concept is being used to prevent unnecessary criticisms and misunderstandings.
Despite the difficulty involved in defining the concept of culture, we can nonetheless draw from the above discussion the idea that the culture of a people impacts on their attitudes towards things including their environmental issues. This has implications for the ecological practices of a people. That is, differences in culture lead to different ways of addressing issues, including environmental ones, even if the approaches of different cultures are similar. Sutton and Anderson (2010), p. 97) emphasise that ‗All people belong to a specific culture, a group of people who share the same basic but unique pattern of learned behaviour. As such, each culture has a distinct ecological adaptation‘ (2010, p. 97). The logical implication of the above discussion, however, is that as long as there are different cultures, there will be diversity in approaches to similar issues.