Introduction

Sir Edward Burnett Tylor defined culture as a “complex whole” including knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs, and other learned capabilities acquired by humans as members of society. Contemporary anthropology further identifies culture as learned, symbolic, patterned, shared, adaptive, and subject to change. Among these characteristics, the idea that culture is patterned and integrated has generated intense debate. While some degree of integration exists, assuming culture as a fully integrated and closed system creates serious drawbacks in understanding contemporary society.

Body

1. Overemphasis on Patterned Integration

Cultural elements stand in some logical relationship to one another. However, it also clearly states that “the degree of coordination among elements of culture is hotly disputed.” Assuming full integration exaggerates coherence and underestimates contradictions within society.

In reality, cultural elements may not always fit together harmoniously. For example, beliefs, laws, and customs may reflect conflicting values. Contemporary societies often display tension between tradition and modernity, morality and economic interest, or equality and hierarchy. Thus, treating culture as completely integrated oversimplifies social complexity.

2. False Assumption of Complete Sharing

Culture is described as being “in some way shared by members of a group.” However, sharing does not mean uniform agreement. Each individual has a unique personality and interacts differently within the cultural framework.

If culture is assumed to be closed and homogeneous, internal diversity is ignored. Different members may hold different beliefs about “the way the world should be.” Contemporary societies are pluralistic; values, norms, and symbolic meanings vary across gender, class, generation, and subgroups. Therefore, assuming a closed system conceals internal differences.

3. Neglect of Cultural Change

No culture remains static; it evolves due to internal dynamics and external influences.

Viewing culture as a closed system suggests rigidity and resistance to outside forces. However, contemporary society is characterized by rapid social transformation due to technological advancement, globalization, and cross-cultural interaction. The speed of change varies across time and place, but change is inevitable. Hence, the closed-system assumption contradicts the dynamic nature of culture emphasized in the input.

4. Ignoring Symbolic Flexibility

Culture involves symbols, and people constantly manipulate, invent, and reinterpret them. Symbols are not fixed or permanently integrated into a rigid structure. Different groups within the same culture may assign different meanings to the same symbol.

If culture is seen as closed and tightly integrated, symbolic diversity and reinterpretation are overlooked. Contemporary societies show intense debate over meanings—religious, political, and moral—demonstrating that cultural integration is neither complete nor uncontested.

5. Limitation of Theoretical Perspectives

Anthropologists hold different theoretical positions and that theory shapes what aspects of society are studied. If culture is assumed to be an integrated and closed system, research may focus only on order and stability while ignoring conflict, inequality, and diversity.

Such a narrow view restricts anthropological understanding and fails to capture the “lively debate” about the nature of human society. Contemporary society requires flexible theoretical approaches that recognize partial integration rather than total coherence.

Conclusion

Although culture is patterned and shared to some extent, assuming it to be an integrated and closed system is problematic. Such an assumption exaggerates harmony, ignores internal diversity, neglects change, and underestimates symbolic flexibility. The input itself highlights that coordination among cultural elements is disputed and that cultures are adaptive and ever-changing. Therefore, in understanding contemporary society, culture must be viewed not as a static, closed whole, but as a dynamic, partially integrated, and continuously evolving system of meanings and behaviors