The individual is not a product of culture. As a species, humans take personal identity very seriously; adolescents eager to tiptoe around conformity by listening to music their friends recommend, grownups flipping through IKEA magazines, looking to find that very special piece of furniture that will define them during the next cocktail party. (by the way, the polished mahogany dresser comes highly recommended) Ones search for individuality is enough to warrant a mid-life crisis, or to a lesser extent, (for those who are tied to marital priorities) a few hours of intense contemplation. In any case, personal identity cannot be decided for someone else within seconds based on that person's physical features and culture.
Culture is an ambiguous term. Ethnic culture, mass culture, popular culture. Culture can represent the social norms of a group of people, as well as the various codes/formulas that people apply to literature, architecture, art. Through the convenience of technology, societies can exchange ideas and gain insight. Just like the individual, culture is not immune to change. Those geographic and metaphorical walls, that have once impeded humanity's need to connect with others, are all the more permeable. There is the common misconception that culture is something that can be preserved and protected. It is futile to guard something that was neither static nor tangible to begin with. Culture is ever changing: being broken down, mixed in with new ideas and becoming something entirely new. The individual doesn't adapt to culture, culture adapts to the individual.
Firoozeh Dumas addresses cultural adaption in her biography, “The F Word”. After immigrating from her country of Iran to America, Firoozeh's name becomes the center of juvenile name-hacking. Later on, her name undergoes personal and marital changes. “Once I got married, my name became Julie Dumas. I went from having an identifiably “ethnic” name to having ancestors who wore clogs”. (63) Admirably, Dumas handles the idea of cultural preservation, with good humor. By adapting to a new culture, as an immigrant, Dumas's intention wasn't to reject her own culture. If anything, she didn't want her name to hinder her ability to climb the social ladder. Dumas's experience is an example of how culture shouldn't be treated as a form of anachronism.
Identity comes in different forms. To be specific, there's extrinsic identity (how others view the individual) and there is intrinsic identity. (how the individual views themselves) Intrinsic identity, is not passive. That form of identity is dictated through personal choices and more, accurately, the person's actions. Eugenics, Human Nature, Fundamental Social Darwinism, greatly undermine the significance of personal choice. The individual is responsible for his/her thoughts and opinions, which shape their values and those values help shape their identity. In contrast, extrinsic identity, is something the individual has no control over. Though many would object, how others perceive and label the individual does play an integral role in social life.
Something interesting: Replace the word 'labeling' and use 'criminal profiling'. It can be used in the same context. In a positive light, it's an innate defense mechanism. Raising the question, how far can a person draw the line in judging and labeling people? If generalizations were brought down to an objective science, a practical science, anything could be rationalize through clever paraphrasing.
To a mal-informed third party perspective, culture and race are also inter-changeable. 'I'm Thai, I'm Filipino, I'm African American, I'm Hispanic', are examples of labels. Those seemingly-innocent labels become caricatures, generalizations, archetypes, but they're never an accurate indicator of who people are individually. On a more superficial level, those ethnic labels are condensed into generalizations based on skin color. In Russell Thornton's poignant New York Times editorial, "What the Census doesn't Count, he states, “Race, we now know, is a social notion, not a biological reality”. (82) Thornton elaborates on this idea: “The black-Indian child may think of himself as Indian, but if no one around him does, then he has run up against the limit of his own power to choose a racial identity”. (84)
Humans are not automatons. If so, why does humanity feel compelled to generalize others of difference and rationalize only themselves? No one wants to be treated as a statistic. Cultural identity is constantly changing alongside the individual, whilst the individual adapts and gains new insights. Nevertheless, the power of generalizing others has a byproduct: discrimination. Differences between groups can be used as a basis for discrimination. However, the point is, it doesn't have to. Combating discrimination or ridding oneself of preconceived notions can easily be remedied by getting to know one-another. The idea gets thrown around a lot, but it's true. Even if one considers themselves to have a moral compass, it is important to be reminded. Ultimately, the only identity individuals are capable of accurately defining is their own.
Culture is an ambiguous term. Ethnic culture, mass culture, popular culture. Culture can represent the social norms of a group of people, as well as the various codes/formulas that people apply to literature, architecture, art. Through the convenience of technology, societies can exchange ideas and gain insight. Just like the individual, culture is not immune to change. Those geographic and metaphorical walls, that have once impeded humanity's need to connect with others, are all the more permeable. There is the common misconception that culture is something that can be preserved and protected. It is futile to guard something that was neither static nor tangible to begin with. Culture is ever changing: being broken down, mixed in with new ideas and becoming something entirely new. The individual doesn't adapt to culture, culture adapts to the individual.
Firoozeh Dumas addresses cultural adaption in her biography, “The F Word”. After immigrating from her country of Iran to America, Firoozeh's name becomes the center of juvenile name-hacking. Later on, her name undergoes personal and marital changes. “Once I got married, my name became Julie Dumas. I went from having an identifiably “ethnic” name to having ancestors who wore clogs”. (63) Admirably, Dumas handles the idea of cultural preservation, with good humor. By adapting to a new culture, as an immigrant, Dumas's intention wasn't to reject her own culture. If anything, she didn't want her name to hinder her ability to climb the social ladder. Dumas's experience is an example of how culture shouldn't be treated as a form of anachronism.
Identity comes in different forms. To be specific, there's extrinsic identity (how others view the individual) and there is intrinsic identity. (how the individual views themselves) Intrinsic identity, is not passive. That form of identity is dictated through personal choices and more, accurately, the person's actions. Eugenics, Human Nature, Fundamental Social Darwinism, greatly undermine the significance of personal choice. The individual is responsible for his/her thoughts and opinions, which shape their values and those values help shape their identity. In contrast, extrinsic identity, is something the individual has no control over. Though many would object, how others perceive and label the individual does play an integral role in social life.
Something interesting: Replace the word 'labeling' and use 'criminal profiling'. It can be used in the same context. In a positive light, it's an innate defense mechanism. Raising the question, how far can a person draw the line in judging and labeling people? If generalizations were brought down to an objective science, a practical science, anything could be rationalize through clever paraphrasing.
To a mal-informed third party perspective, culture and race are also inter-changeable. 'I'm Thai, I'm Filipino, I'm African American, I'm Hispanic', are examples of labels. Those seemingly-innocent labels become caricatures, generalizations, archetypes, but they're never an accurate indicator of who people are individually. On a more superficial level, those ethnic labels are condensed into generalizations based on skin color. In Russell Thornton's poignant New York Times editorial, "What the Census doesn't Count, he states, “Race, we now know, is a social notion, not a biological reality”. (82) Thornton elaborates on this idea: “The black-Indian child may think of himself as Indian, but if no one around him does, then he has run up against the limit of his own power to choose a racial identity”. (84)
Humans are not automatons. If so, why does humanity feel compelled to generalize others of difference and rationalize only themselves? No one wants to be treated as a statistic. Cultural identity is constantly changing alongside the individual, whilst the individual adapts and gains new insights. Nevertheless, the power of generalizing others has a byproduct: discrimination. Differences between groups can be used as a basis for discrimination. However, the point is, it doesn't have to. Combating discrimination or ridding oneself of preconceived notions can easily be remedied by getting to know one-another. The idea gets thrown around a lot, but it's true. Even if one considers themselves to have a moral compass, it is important to be reminded. Ultimately, the only identity individuals are capable of accurately defining is their own.
Dumas, Firoozeh. “The F Word” Remix Boston, MA. Bedford/ St.Martin's. 2006
Thornton, Russell. “What the Census Doesn't Count” Remix Boston, MA. Bedford/ St.Martin's. 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment