Culture is a term I suppose we are all familiar with. The phalanx of stabilizing ideologies and colloquial behaviours endemic to an area. But, it has another definition borne from the study of biology. It is defined as such: “maintain (tissue cells, bacteria, etc.) in conditions suitable for growth.”

Now, the former is rooted in the past and the continued tending of what the people have inherited. A way of life that has come down to them and deemed perfect and good. This gift from the past is seen as eternal. “The way it’s always been. And ever shall be.” A perfect guide for life and living.

The latter on the other hand if applied socially, sees the current social situation to be a medium for expansion and growth. It uses its resources to be the space in which change will occur. A neutral space, it only wishes for input to catalyze. This subtle difference in definition may be why so many of us make the mistake that they are the same or even related ideas.

The former requires stagnancy. It needs stability to the point of entropy. It is constantly recycling it’s material in order to shove it back into the system. It is a system of patches and work arounds in service of the constant continuation of what has been. Maintenance in its primacy.

The latter requires constant change and collision. It’s form is ever evolved by the inclusion or contact with utterly different materials. Through this reshaping and reforming, new and expanded forms of behaviour thrive. A movement toward open maximization is supported. Also, the individual can be as important to this motion as the whole culture itself.

It seems that only the latter actually lives up to both definitional attitudes. That being the latter. A medium for growth and advancement of its members. The former however seemed to have more definitional equivalency with another term: Compost.

A compost heap imparts it’s power through compressing refuse that has already used its apparent value up. Then it continues to pile that diminished material on top of it self till the friction or weight of the decomposing refuse begins to create heat. The hope is that at the end you are left with a patch of useful earth after it has all rotted away.

This would leave behind the fertile medium for growth. All of this only possible AFTER the past valued refuse is fully disintegrated and forgotten. So to call this type of social structure a “culture” is inaccurate in the extreme. It allows for a culture only after the former is completely rotted away.

If we were to flatly apply this to our own human societies, we can see the correlations very obviously. If you only support, revere and care for the past, you are doomed to be crushed into obscurity under its weight. And those that come after you are going to be left with invaluable information, on what not to do.

On the other hand if you invite interaction and collision into your system, you create the avenue for growth. If you are open to growth then you can eventually evolve from a microbe on a try to the human using it. That evolution cannot happen without a medium in which to catalyze it.

It is up to the individual to see which path they will choose. But, do you ever remember a compost heap choosing what goes into it?