Thanks to all the members for their participation and comments during the first series of debates. I would like to open the second in this series of debates by inviting the next motion from the membership. After a few days, if I do not get any suggestions, I will post the next operative question and invite members to argue for or against, and for any suggestions on how the question could or should be reframed.
Again the rules for the debate are as follows:
1. Debate starts with the reading of the operative question and the selection of participants;
2. This will be followed by a brief period for points of clarification;
3. Debate is set to a minimum of 2 rounds but can be extended upward to four if requested by either participant;
4. Although there is no specific length to statements or rebuttal, we ask that debate be as concise and to the point as possible;
5. Following completion of the rounds, the operative question will be opened to discussion from the membership;
6. Participants may be asked if they are open to points of information following their respective rounds; and
7. Points of inquiry from the membership (to the participant) can only be made following the complete series of rounds.
8. After a period of one week, we will move to the next operative question.
For me, to think of the concept of society or its ‘redefinition’ is to bear in mind the differences in which it exists as a reality sui generis in the Durkhemian sense, or how it becomes a web of signification within a particular system of thought and practice.
With an anthropological training that began with society and culture as paradigms, I’m incline to follow the questions anthropologists ask, how those questions rely on the evolution of perspectives within the discipline, and the relation of theory to their ethnographic findings. What is interesting for me in the interaction between system and practice is how practice operates in a system compared to how a system operates in practice, even though in a way the last has been valuable in a certain period and useful in the sense of following the debates within that particular practice of framework, because of the predisposition towards the existing meaning of relations and other practices in a nutshell.
As shown for example in the debates between Sahlins and Obejesekere, certain conditions become important to understand social relations between culture and historical processes.
Society, as a sociocultural term or concept, can be a research framework in itself if defined according to how a culture, a group, a population, or a geography understands and conceptualizes it.
There are cultures whose words for society are based on socialization. Some define it according to group membership. Others consider it an imaginary space.
In my culture, our word for it is "lipunan", which is from the root word lipun (group) and the suffix -nan (converge). So, if I have to use how we define society in my fieldwork, I can look at it as a space where a group converges. I can, for instance, make the ocean as my focal point if I am in a fishing village to study a group of fishermen.