One of the major questions in anthropology is regarding the adequacy of the concept of "culture". Culture, as understood in an anthropological light, is knowledge that allows us to interpret experience and generate behaviour, beliefs, values, norms and ideologies. In comparison with the 19th century explanation of difference based on "race", the introduction of the term "culture" was certainly not negative. It took the emphasis off of biology as the determining factor for difference, yet what did it bring us to?
There is the feeling that "cultures" are bound, coherent, self contained, timeless and static. This is why we can talk about "aboriginal culture", "Indian culture", "Brazilian culture", etc. Yet this really produces imagined communities. These things don't really exist. What we are talking about when we speak of these cultures is a generalization of a people, based on a studied few. To put this in perspective, think about how we would discuss Canadian culture. How could we talk about Canadian culture to include anglo-europeans, franco-europeans, metis, foreign immigrants, and the numerous different aboriginal groups? There is no one culture that encompasses all these groups, and yet we can read material talking about what it means to be Canadian, and to live in a Canadian community. What makes us think that the material about what it means to live in Brazil, and maintain Brazilian identity, are any more accurate?
One of the major questions in anthropology is whether we have exoticized the "other" through ethnographic representation of culture. Are we "culture collecting"? Have we essentialized cultures? Is the use of "culture" just masking an underlying prejudice against different peoples?
How strange to be in a discipline that cannot even be unanimously decided on one of its very key concepts.