As a cultural and communication scientist, Jürgen Bolten is concerned with the questions of what is actually defined as cultures and how they can be described. His concept of fuzzy cultures argues for an open, multi-valued understanding of culture that conceives of cultural spaces as dynamic network structures. Following Lotfi Zadeh’s fuzzy logic, fuzzy refers to states that remain fuzzy and thus logically multivalued (cf. Bolten 2011, 2).
From a two-valued to a multi-valued concept of culture.
The two-valued conception of culture of the first modernity was based on the idea that each nation formed its own homogeneous group and was thus to be regarded as self-contained. Accordingly, cultural borders ran synchronously with geographical borders, and one’s own collective identity could be constructed in particular by demarcating oneself from the foreign. Within this binary logic, factors such as religion, ethnicity, or language could be interpreted as culturally specific. Sociologist Ulrich Beck equates this interpretation with the image of a container (cf. Bolten 2013, 2).
Network
In the course of globalization, however, this definition increasingly lost its claim to reality. The container was replaced by the image of an intercultural network, which, according to Bolten, forms the unique selling point of the multivalent concept of culture. His definition carries out a change of perspective, which presents intercultural reciprocity relations instead of emphasizing the differences. Thus, every individual is a member of different collectives at the same time, which means that generalizations can no longer be made, but rather relative degrees of belonging must be spoken of. This is true both on an intercultural and intracultural level. As a result, fuzzy cultures are subject to constant structural processes of change and can only be described as open and heterogeneous (cf. Bolten 2011, 2-4).
It should be emphasized that Bolten’s concept of culture does not replace the first one, but includes it. In the multi-valued way of thinking of ‚both-as-also‘, the two-valued ‚either-or‘ is thus integrated. Comparable is this relation with the Daoist yin and yang, which would be unthinkable without the respective other (cf. Bolten 2011, 2). It is disputed whether the multivalent concept of culture can be attributed to the second modernity or functions as an intermediate stage of the moderns (cf. Bolten 2013, 2).
Zooming
The problem with the multivalent concept of culture is that its complexity in application can quickly lead to an analytical loss of orientation. To prevent this, Bolten recommends first zooming in on the micro level of a concrete field of cultural action before zooming out to the macro level of structural conditions. By repeatedly changing both perspectives, the danger of generalization could be reduced, since the findings would already be placed in a relative relation from the beginning. Thus, from a micro perspective, everything usually appears much more heterogeneous than from a macro perspective (cf. Bolten 2013, 3). Bolten’s Sandberg model serves as a further illustration of the structural-processual nature of culture.
Literature
Bolten, Jürgen (2014): Fuzzy Sandberg – or: (How) can cultures be described? http://iwk-jena.uni-jena.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2014_Fuzzy_Sandberg.pdf [12.03.2020].
Bolten, Jürgen (2013): Fuzzy Cultures: Consequences of an open and multi-valued concept of culture for conceptualizations of intercultural personnel development measures. http://iwk-jena.uni-jena.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bolten_2013_Fuzzy_Cultures.pdf [12.03.2020].
Bolten, Jürgen: Fuzziness and Multivalency (2011): „Intercultural Competence“ against the Background of an Open Concept of Culture. http://iwk-jena.uni-jena.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2011_Unschaerfe_Mehrwertigkeit_Ik-Kompetenz_fuzzy.pdf [12.03.2020].
Bolten, Jürgen (2010): ‚Fuzzy Diversity‘ as a Basis for Intercultural Dialogue Competence. http://iwk-jena.uni-jena.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2010_FuzzyDiversity_EWE_Auernheimer.pdf [04.03.2020].