By virtue of the more than ninety per cent of shared deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) every human being has something in common with every other human being on Earth. An in-depth look at humans, however, proves similarities and differences beyond the genetic code. People everywhere have, or desire, strong familial bonds, recognize differences in the genders, and journey through life searching for a fulfilling life. These similarities manifest cross-culturally because they all relate to how we define ourselves. Despite the similarities all people have one major difference, culture. Everyone has a culture, but each culture leads to differences between people of one culture and another. These types of differences include what motivates a person, how they see others, and how they view themselves. Through different cultures similarities become differences. Therefore, while all people may see the importance of strong family/marital bonds, they may have different motivations for choosing a mate, while all people may see others as having some value, what makes a person beautiful or respectable can differ drastically and each depends on culture. With all of these differences there are those who want to divide, divide, and divide again until each person is in their own box all alone. But, for me, we are not people when alone. It is only when we come together and seek to understand, and embrace, each other for similarities and differences alike, that we find our humanity.
Humanity, what it means to be human, depends on the commonalities that bind us together. People everywhere have, or desire, strong familial bonds. In his work A Short Introduction to Anthropology David Crandall notes that “family” fills a wide range of definitions around the world, but everywhere people group themselves in units that are considered the basis of their society. [1] For the most part these “families” depend on consanguinity and affinity, or blood and marriage, although groups of unrelated people have been known to gather and form bonds, because the yearning for family relationships is so strong. [1] In Iraq, families seem to depend more blood than marriage, for when Elizabeth Fernea travelled to El Nahra, everyone considered it a great trial that she was so far from her blood family despite the fact that she was married. [2] Fernea reports that among the Iraqi, “loneliness was one of the greatest of misfortunes, for it meant that your family had deserted you, and you had no one sufficiently concerned for your welfare to stay with you.” [2] Similarly Americans feel a connection to family members by blood and marriage, and seek to strengthen these relationships through communication. [3] American parents feel the need to guide, instruct, and reprimand their children throughout their whole lives because they care about them, and want them to have the best life possible. [3] Across the world in Africa Himba families feel so strongly connected to each other that they often live in close proximity to each other. [4] In the Himba world families work together to ensure the continuation of the family unit. [4] In other areas around the world families have changed how they grow crops, to help ensure the continuation of their families. These farmers employ “no-till” methods to prevent the soil from eroding away, and thereby ensuring that their families can continue to work the land. [5] These examples from various cultures throughout the world, show a common theme: the importance of family. No matter who you are in the world, you have someone you consider “family” and that relationship has an especially strong place in your life. But even for those not considered “family”, universally people, more or less, recognize that each person has potential and the right to a fulfilling life.
People everywhere have the right to a fulfilling life, and have the potential to be contributing members of society. Recognizing these truths is a similarity binds that every culture across the globe, and these truths manifest themselves in a variety of situations and circumstances. The most easily recognized manifestation is the right to life, and attempts to preserve the life of others. In two of Reader’s Digest “Everyday Hero” reports ordinary people step up to help save the lives of others. In one “Trapped on the Tracks” a few citizens band together to move a car stuck on railroad tracks in the face of an oncoming train. [6] In another “Slasher Attack” a man intervenes in the attack of a co-worker, despite the obvious threat to his own life by the attacker. [7] One night as Judith Schmidt got into her car to drive home an attacker forced her into her car at knife point and attempted to take off. [7] However, Schmidt’s co-worker Ted Lidgett happened to be nearby and intervened to save her, even while his own life was threatened. [7] In these two instances the common bond of the right to life manifests itself in the attempt to preserve the life of another. A further manifestation of this right to life is in the cry for universal healthcare found all over the world. The film “Sick around the World” takes a look at five specific cultures, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland, which manifest their common desire for a fulfilling life through providing healthcare to all citizens. [8] For those in Russia however, one manifestation of the desire for a fulfilling life came through the push for access to The Beatles music. During the time of The Beatles, youth in the West had free access to their music, however, behind the Iron Curtain youths had to smuggle in and illegally distribute copies of The Beatles. [9] Because the youth of the Soviet Union had the universal desire to live a happy life, they worked hard to gain access to this small joy, which later led to the downfall of the Iron Curtain and access to many of the greater joys of the western world. [9] A further manifestation of the right to life is seen in the work done by many to give the power access to the tools they need to pull themselves out of poverty and enjoy the riches of the world. Hernando de Soto has spent his life helping various cultures recognize this manifestation. [10] Particularly he has helped the Peruvian government to cut down on the money and time involved for small business owners to become legally recognized and enjoy the benefits thereof. [10] From these examples it is clear that across all cultures people recognize the need to have a fulfilling life. All cultures however, also recognize that “fulfilling” has different meanings, particularly for men and women.
Crandall’s book on anthropology indicates that all cultures recognize at least two, and sometimes a third, gender with specific roles and places in societies. [11] He notes that although these roles can vary from culture to culture, the sexes are never-the-less recognized as distinctly different and having different life goals or finding fulfillment in different places. [11] For men in the Ilongot society part of a fulfilling life involves completing the ritual of headhunting, or taking the head of a man from another tribe. [12] For men and women in China, the definition of “fulfilling” is changing for each gender. However, most women continue to seek a fulfilling life in the home with their families, while men seek a fulfilling life by succeeding the business world. [13] The changes to the definition of “fulfilling” are slow to come however, because those who are still seeking fulfillment are not entirely in control of the definition. Many anthropologists agree that cultural ideals, about “fulfilling” lives, mainly come from those in charge. [14] In this case it is the parents and other older people, because the young people look to them to see what made them happy in life. [13] However, anthropologists have also noted that ideas, about fulfillment, can change over time even when these ideas previously seemed absolutely and irrevocably true. [15] Therefore, in recognizing the universal need for a fulfilling life, all people also recognize that these ideas are slowly changing as are their specific associations with gender.
These three commonalities family, a fulfilling life, and gender roles all have one constant that makes them universal similarities. Each commonality links directly to how we see ourselves. Within the bounds of a family a person finds part of a definition of self, the people we relate to help us find our place in the world. Finding our place is also key part of living a fulfilling life. Each person’s idea of having a fulfilling life links directly to their sense of self, the kind of life you want speaks to the kind of person you are. Most directly the kind of person you are is linked to your gender which then leads your idea of a fulfilling life. Despite the common goal we all share of searching for a sense of self, and the further similar life experiences of family, gender, and fulfillment, culture always brings up the differences. The types of differences that arise in culture include: motivations, how we see others, and most importantly how we see ourselves.
One of the types of differences that arises through culture is that of motivation. A specific manifestation of differing motivations involves the motivation in choosing a mate. Even though the desire to form family bonds is universal, the motivation behind those bonds, particularly marital bonds, usually differs based on culture. In the Iraqi culture a man can marry up to four times, and often times the motivation to do so is economic. [2] In these cases the other wife/wives have too much household work and need the added help. [2] In Japan marriages are usually arranged, meaning that the couples often do not know, much less love, each other when they marry. [16] One woman recalls that “there was never an love between me and my husband” and “[I live] for my kids, and for my family, and for society”. [16] Here the motivation is more tradition and the need for offspring to continue the society. [16] Among the Himba motivation again varies as they usually marry to continue their family lines. [4] With the Himba however, love is also an important factor. [4] These differences in motivation arise because of the different cultures. Each culture teaches a different reason to marry, economy, offspring, love, or even a mixture of all three, and thus men and women find different motivations to marry and stay together. Culture also teaches how we see others.
As seen earlier it is universally accepted that every person has a right to life. However, how we see others, in terms of beauty and economic standing or leadership, can vary depending on culture. In western cultures the emphasis placed on “skinny” as the equivalent of beauty, is well documented. However, there are other cultures that take an opposing view. Among some African tribes fat is seen as the equivalent of beauty. [17] Nigerians send their young women to special rooms where they only eat food in order gain weight and become more beautiful. [17] Still other cultures, such as the Iraqis, believe that a beautiful woman is one who keeps herself hidden from the world. [2] A person’s worth however is more than beauty, it also has to do with their economic standing. Jared Diamond argues that farming has brought about differences in economic standing. [18] With the advent of farming some people began to have more free time and they developed specialized talents that then led to stratification and division. [19] This stratification led to people with clear power over others, whether given or taken. In some cases specialization means political leaders. However, the amount of respect people have for a leader depends on how they were placed in charge and their personality. [20] Particularly for prison wardens, as noted by one commandant of Auschwitz, some are evil minded and terrorize prisoners, some are totally indifferent but still inflict harm through their neglect, while the last group is somewhat friendly and feels for the plight of their prisoners. [20] All of these different leadership styles, while based partially in personality, come from different cultures or ways of thinking as taught by society. A broader look at leadership style differences come from various cultures throughout the world. For instance tribal societies have leaders based on linage, but the position on inherits respect according to cultural customs. [21] This is contrasted with a state system where the leaders are more or less chosen by the people for their leadership qualities. [21] In all of these various cases the amount of respect people have for a leader, and the extent to which the leader is able to enforce his decisions, comes from what their culture dictates is important, the qualities of the leader himself, the position he has/inherited, or some other factor. Closely related to the worth we give to others is the worth we give to ourselves. While self-worth is related to ideas of beauty and societal standing, another aspect relates to fulfillment, and that is the source of our income.
Generally people associate certain sources of income with more or less worth, particularly self-worth. However, which positions hold more worth vary drastically with culture. For example, in Edwardian England manor lords, who gained income from their vast estates, held high economic positions particularly over those that served in their houses as servants. [22] Even in American culture today certain positions are worth more than others. The mechanization of food production means that less than 2% of the population is responsible for feeding everyone. [23] However, this specialized group must rely one knowing their value to society with in themselves, because their place is often lost to the end user. [23] A group that was once also a fringe group, only knowing their value to society among themselves, is the nerds of the world. [24] This group began to change cultural perceptions of their place in society as they brought technology into the everyday lives of everyone else. [24] The value, and self-worth, placed on holding any one of these positions depends on one’s culture. In modern America nerds have a high place, however, in Edwardian England value depended more on money and land than strictly education and specialized knowledge. Max Weber substantiates the claim that this difference comes from culture. [25] Weber noted that differences in culture, particularly how religion views wealth, heavily influence how much people want wealth and therefore how much value they give to those who have already gained it. [25] Here the difference is clear: cultural values.
A thorough look at all of the types of differences found among peoples of the world: motivation, beauty, and worth, reveals one constant. The only constant is culture. Every single one of the differences described previously arises because of different cultural values. But how do different cultures arise? Using Crandall’s definition, culture is “a learned set of ideas and behaviors acquired by person as members of society”. [26] Crandall later asserts that because we use these ideas to navigate through life we must be mostly sure of their “correctness”. [27] In another work Crandall states that we determine the “correctness” of our ideas “through an experience in which the knowledge is deemed to be universal and timeless”. [28] We then also base the “rightness” of some aspect of our lives off of these cultural ideas. [27] For example, among Americans the “right” idea of beauty is skinniness, while among Nigerians the “right” idea of beauty is fat. Therefore, different cultures began because one person determined one school of thought to be more “right” than another, and various cultures have perpetuated because successive generations continue to find them “right” despite obvious differences with other cultures. The similarities found in cultures also trace back to this sense of “rightness”. We want ourselves to fit into our world view and therefore we seek to define ourselves through common elements such as family, gender, and fulfillment. Our individual cultures then dictate what “right” feels like in each of those areas. It is this “rightness” that is most important.
In fact to most people “rightness” comes above all else. In fact written into a simple acronym: We Are Right, it explains every single conflict in all of human history. Christians believed they we “right” to invade the Holy Land, Hitler believed he was “right” to conquer the world, and America believed it was “right” to invade Iraq and attempt to police the world. “Rightness” usually points out cultural differences and holds them against another group of people as some great evil, instead simply a different way of thinking about the world. Unfortunately as human beings our concept of “right” usually only allows for one way of thinking, so that despite all of the commonalities of our human experience, our common yearning for familial relationships and a fulfilling life, we focus on the differences. While I can see the importance of having relationships with people who have the same cultural values, these relationships provide assurance and solidarity, I think that the more valuable relationships we can have are with those that do not have the same cultural values. It is from these people that we learn to look at the world differently, learn that different is not the equivalent of wrong, and maybe, just maybe learn enough to take a deep at our previously held “truths” and reevaluate them for actual truth. Differences between people divide, and even within cultures idiosyncrasies can divide, divide, and divide people again, until the only person in your cultural “box” is yourself. However, it is through reaching out and across the divisions that we find similarities, commonalities and our humanity. We cannot be human alone.
Works Cited
[1] D. Crandall, "Chapter 4: Kinship, Descent & Marriage," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Birgham Young University, 2008, pp. 41-54.
[2] E. W. Fernea, Guests of the Sheik: An Ethnography of an Iraqi Village, New York: Anchor Books, 1965.
[3] D. Tannen, ""I Can't Even Open My Mouth" Separating Messaes from Metamessages in Family Talk," in I only Say This Because I Love You, Random House, Inc., 2001, pp. 3-28.
[4] D. Crandall, The Place of Stunted Ironwood Trees, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2000.
[5] D. H. John Reganold, "No-Till: How Farmers Are Saving the Soil by Parking Their Plows," Scientific American , 30 June 2008.
[6] "Trapped on the Tracks," Reader's Digest, 2008.
[7] L. Rosellini, "Slasher Attack," Reader's Digest, 2008.
[8] T. Reid, Director, Sick Around the World. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2008.
[9] L. Woodhead, Director, How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2009.
[10] H. d. Soto, Director, Power of the Poor. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Station, 2008.
[11] D. Crandall, "Chapter 5: Sex, Gender, & The Person," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 55-62.
[12] "Headhunting," 2008.
[13] S. Williams, Director, Young and Restless in China. [Film]. United States of America: Ambrica Productions, 2008.
[14] D. Crandall, "Chapter 2: Current Anthropological Theory," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 19-33.
[15] D. Crandall, "Chapter 3: Doing Anthropology: How Academic "Truth" is Created," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 34-40.
[16] N. D. Kristof, "Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couples Don't," New York Times, pp. 114-116, 11 February 1996.
[17] A. M. Simmons, "Where Fat is a Mark of Beauty," Los Angeles Times, pp. 129-130, 30 September 1998.
[18] J. Diamond, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, pp. 1-6, 1987.
[19] J. Diamond, Director, Guns, Germs, and Steel. [Film]. United States of America: Lion Television, 2008.
[20] R. Hoess, in Commandant of Auschwitz, Cleveland and New York, The World Publishing Company, pp. 76-175.
[21] D. Crandall, "Chapter 6: Politics: Keeping the Order," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 63-72.
[22] The Manor House. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2008.
[23] J. S. S. S. Nic Young, Director, America Revealed: The Food Machine. [Film]. United States of America: Lion Television, 2008.
[24] P. Sen, Director, Triumph of the Nerds. [Film]. United States : Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1996.
[25] D. Crandall, "Chapter 7: Making a Living: Economics & Life," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 73-87.
[26] D. Crandall, "Chapter 1: A Brief history of Anthropological Thought," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 3-18.
[27] D. Crandall, "Chapter 8: Humans & Ideas: Making Worlds Out of "Nothing"," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 88-103.
[28] D. Crandall, "Knowing Human Moral Knowledge to be True: An Essay on Intellectual Conviction," Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 10, pp. 307-326, 2004.
Humanity, what it means to be human, depends on the commonalities that bind us together. People everywhere have, or desire, strong familial bonds. In his work A Short Introduction to Anthropology David Crandall notes that “family” fills a wide range of definitions around the world, but everywhere people group themselves in units that are considered the basis of their society. [1] For the most part these “families” depend on consanguinity and affinity, or blood and marriage, although groups of unrelated people have been known to gather and form bonds, because the yearning for family relationships is so strong. [1] In Iraq, families seem to depend more blood than marriage, for when Elizabeth Fernea travelled to El Nahra, everyone considered it a great trial that she was so far from her blood family despite the fact that she was married. [2] Fernea reports that among the Iraqi, “loneliness was one of the greatest of misfortunes, for it meant that your family had deserted you, and you had no one sufficiently concerned for your welfare to stay with you.” [2] Similarly Americans feel a connection to family members by blood and marriage, and seek to strengthen these relationships through communication. [3] American parents feel the need to guide, instruct, and reprimand their children throughout their whole lives because they care about them, and want them to have the best life possible. [3] Across the world in Africa Himba families feel so strongly connected to each other that they often live in close proximity to each other. [4] In the Himba world families work together to ensure the continuation of the family unit. [4] In other areas around the world families have changed how they grow crops, to help ensure the continuation of their families. These farmers employ “no-till” methods to prevent the soil from eroding away, and thereby ensuring that their families can continue to work the land. [5] These examples from various cultures throughout the world, show a common theme: the importance of family. No matter who you are in the world, you have someone you consider “family” and that relationship has an especially strong place in your life. But even for those not considered “family”, universally people, more or less, recognize that each person has potential and the right to a fulfilling life.
People everywhere have the right to a fulfilling life, and have the potential to be contributing members of society. Recognizing these truths is a similarity binds that every culture across the globe, and these truths manifest themselves in a variety of situations and circumstances. The most easily recognized manifestation is the right to life, and attempts to preserve the life of others. In two of Reader’s Digest “Everyday Hero” reports ordinary people step up to help save the lives of others. In one “Trapped on the Tracks” a few citizens band together to move a car stuck on railroad tracks in the face of an oncoming train. [6] In another “Slasher Attack” a man intervenes in the attack of a co-worker, despite the obvious threat to his own life by the attacker. [7] One night as Judith Schmidt got into her car to drive home an attacker forced her into her car at knife point and attempted to take off. [7] However, Schmidt’s co-worker Ted Lidgett happened to be nearby and intervened to save her, even while his own life was threatened. [7] In these two instances the common bond of the right to life manifests itself in the attempt to preserve the life of another. A further manifestation of this right to life is in the cry for universal healthcare found all over the world. The film “Sick around the World” takes a look at five specific cultures, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland, which manifest their common desire for a fulfilling life through providing healthcare to all citizens. [8] For those in Russia however, one manifestation of the desire for a fulfilling life came through the push for access to The Beatles music. During the time of The Beatles, youth in the West had free access to their music, however, behind the Iron Curtain youths had to smuggle in and illegally distribute copies of The Beatles. [9] Because the youth of the Soviet Union had the universal desire to live a happy life, they worked hard to gain access to this small joy, which later led to the downfall of the Iron Curtain and access to many of the greater joys of the western world. [9] A further manifestation of the right to life is seen in the work done by many to give the power access to the tools they need to pull themselves out of poverty and enjoy the riches of the world. Hernando de Soto has spent his life helping various cultures recognize this manifestation. [10] Particularly he has helped the Peruvian government to cut down on the money and time involved for small business owners to become legally recognized and enjoy the benefits thereof. [10] From these examples it is clear that across all cultures people recognize the need to have a fulfilling life. All cultures however, also recognize that “fulfilling” has different meanings, particularly for men and women.
Crandall’s book on anthropology indicates that all cultures recognize at least two, and sometimes a third, gender with specific roles and places in societies. [11] He notes that although these roles can vary from culture to culture, the sexes are never-the-less recognized as distinctly different and having different life goals or finding fulfillment in different places. [11] For men in the Ilongot society part of a fulfilling life involves completing the ritual of headhunting, or taking the head of a man from another tribe. [12] For men and women in China, the definition of “fulfilling” is changing for each gender. However, most women continue to seek a fulfilling life in the home with their families, while men seek a fulfilling life by succeeding the business world. [13] The changes to the definition of “fulfilling” are slow to come however, because those who are still seeking fulfillment are not entirely in control of the definition. Many anthropologists agree that cultural ideals, about “fulfilling” lives, mainly come from those in charge. [14] In this case it is the parents and other older people, because the young people look to them to see what made them happy in life. [13] However, anthropologists have also noted that ideas, about fulfillment, can change over time even when these ideas previously seemed absolutely and irrevocably true. [15] Therefore, in recognizing the universal need for a fulfilling life, all people also recognize that these ideas are slowly changing as are their specific associations with gender.
These three commonalities family, a fulfilling life, and gender roles all have one constant that makes them universal similarities. Each commonality links directly to how we see ourselves. Within the bounds of a family a person finds part of a definition of self, the people we relate to help us find our place in the world. Finding our place is also key part of living a fulfilling life. Each person’s idea of having a fulfilling life links directly to their sense of self, the kind of life you want speaks to the kind of person you are. Most directly the kind of person you are is linked to your gender which then leads your idea of a fulfilling life. Despite the common goal we all share of searching for a sense of self, and the further similar life experiences of family, gender, and fulfillment, culture always brings up the differences. The types of differences that arise in culture include: motivations, how we see others, and most importantly how we see ourselves.
One of the types of differences that arises through culture is that of motivation. A specific manifestation of differing motivations involves the motivation in choosing a mate. Even though the desire to form family bonds is universal, the motivation behind those bonds, particularly marital bonds, usually differs based on culture. In the Iraqi culture a man can marry up to four times, and often times the motivation to do so is economic. [2] In these cases the other wife/wives have too much household work and need the added help. [2] In Japan marriages are usually arranged, meaning that the couples often do not know, much less love, each other when they marry. [16] One woman recalls that “there was never an love between me and my husband” and “[I live] for my kids, and for my family, and for society”. [16] Here the motivation is more tradition and the need for offspring to continue the society. [16] Among the Himba motivation again varies as they usually marry to continue their family lines. [4] With the Himba however, love is also an important factor. [4] These differences in motivation arise because of the different cultures. Each culture teaches a different reason to marry, economy, offspring, love, or even a mixture of all three, and thus men and women find different motivations to marry and stay together. Culture also teaches how we see others.
As seen earlier it is universally accepted that every person has a right to life. However, how we see others, in terms of beauty and economic standing or leadership, can vary depending on culture. In western cultures the emphasis placed on “skinny” as the equivalent of beauty, is well documented. However, there are other cultures that take an opposing view. Among some African tribes fat is seen as the equivalent of beauty. [17] Nigerians send their young women to special rooms where they only eat food in order gain weight and become more beautiful. [17] Still other cultures, such as the Iraqis, believe that a beautiful woman is one who keeps herself hidden from the world. [2] A person’s worth however is more than beauty, it also has to do with their economic standing. Jared Diamond argues that farming has brought about differences in economic standing. [18] With the advent of farming some people began to have more free time and they developed specialized talents that then led to stratification and division. [19] This stratification led to people with clear power over others, whether given or taken. In some cases specialization means political leaders. However, the amount of respect people have for a leader depends on how they were placed in charge and their personality. [20] Particularly for prison wardens, as noted by one commandant of Auschwitz, some are evil minded and terrorize prisoners, some are totally indifferent but still inflict harm through their neglect, while the last group is somewhat friendly and feels for the plight of their prisoners. [20] All of these different leadership styles, while based partially in personality, come from different cultures or ways of thinking as taught by society. A broader look at leadership style differences come from various cultures throughout the world. For instance tribal societies have leaders based on linage, but the position on inherits respect according to cultural customs. [21] This is contrasted with a state system where the leaders are more or less chosen by the people for their leadership qualities. [21] In all of these various cases the amount of respect people have for a leader, and the extent to which the leader is able to enforce his decisions, comes from what their culture dictates is important, the qualities of the leader himself, the position he has/inherited, or some other factor. Closely related to the worth we give to others is the worth we give to ourselves. While self-worth is related to ideas of beauty and societal standing, another aspect relates to fulfillment, and that is the source of our income.
Generally people associate certain sources of income with more or less worth, particularly self-worth. However, which positions hold more worth vary drastically with culture. For example, in Edwardian England manor lords, who gained income from their vast estates, held high economic positions particularly over those that served in their houses as servants. [22] Even in American culture today certain positions are worth more than others. The mechanization of food production means that less than 2% of the population is responsible for feeding everyone. [23] However, this specialized group must rely one knowing their value to society with in themselves, because their place is often lost to the end user. [23] A group that was once also a fringe group, only knowing their value to society among themselves, is the nerds of the world. [24] This group began to change cultural perceptions of their place in society as they brought technology into the everyday lives of everyone else. [24] The value, and self-worth, placed on holding any one of these positions depends on one’s culture. In modern America nerds have a high place, however, in Edwardian England value depended more on money and land than strictly education and specialized knowledge. Max Weber substantiates the claim that this difference comes from culture. [25] Weber noted that differences in culture, particularly how religion views wealth, heavily influence how much people want wealth and therefore how much value they give to those who have already gained it. [25] Here the difference is clear: cultural values.
A thorough look at all of the types of differences found among peoples of the world: motivation, beauty, and worth, reveals one constant. The only constant is culture. Every single one of the differences described previously arises because of different cultural values. But how do different cultures arise? Using Crandall’s definition, culture is “a learned set of ideas and behaviors acquired by person as members of society”. [26] Crandall later asserts that because we use these ideas to navigate through life we must be mostly sure of their “correctness”. [27] In another work Crandall states that we determine the “correctness” of our ideas “through an experience in which the knowledge is deemed to be universal and timeless”. [28] We then also base the “rightness” of some aspect of our lives off of these cultural ideas. [27] For example, among Americans the “right” idea of beauty is skinniness, while among Nigerians the “right” idea of beauty is fat. Therefore, different cultures began because one person determined one school of thought to be more “right” than another, and various cultures have perpetuated because successive generations continue to find them “right” despite obvious differences with other cultures. The similarities found in cultures also trace back to this sense of “rightness”. We want ourselves to fit into our world view and therefore we seek to define ourselves through common elements such as family, gender, and fulfillment. Our individual cultures then dictate what “right” feels like in each of those areas. It is this “rightness” that is most important.
In fact to most people “rightness” comes above all else. In fact written into a simple acronym: We Are Right, it explains every single conflict in all of human history. Christians believed they we “right” to invade the Holy Land, Hitler believed he was “right” to conquer the world, and America believed it was “right” to invade Iraq and attempt to police the world. “Rightness” usually points out cultural differences and holds them against another group of people as some great evil, instead simply a different way of thinking about the world. Unfortunately as human beings our concept of “right” usually only allows for one way of thinking, so that despite all of the commonalities of our human experience, our common yearning for familial relationships and a fulfilling life, we focus on the differences. While I can see the importance of having relationships with people who have the same cultural values, these relationships provide assurance and solidarity, I think that the more valuable relationships we can have are with those that do not have the same cultural values. It is from these people that we learn to look at the world differently, learn that different is not the equivalent of wrong, and maybe, just maybe learn enough to take a deep at our previously held “truths” and reevaluate them for actual truth. Differences between people divide, and even within cultures idiosyncrasies can divide, divide, and divide people again, until the only person in your cultural “box” is yourself. However, it is through reaching out and across the divisions that we find similarities, commonalities and our humanity. We cannot be human alone.
Works Cited
[1] D. Crandall, "Chapter 4: Kinship, Descent & Marriage," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Birgham Young University, 2008, pp. 41-54.
[2] E. W. Fernea, Guests of the Sheik: An Ethnography of an Iraqi Village, New York: Anchor Books, 1965.
[3] D. Tannen, ""I Can't Even Open My Mouth" Separating Messaes from Metamessages in Family Talk," in I only Say This Because I Love You, Random House, Inc., 2001, pp. 3-28.
[4] D. Crandall, The Place of Stunted Ironwood Trees, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2000.
[5] D. H. John Reganold, "No-Till: How Farmers Are Saving the Soil by Parking Their Plows," Scientific American , 30 June 2008.
[6] "Trapped on the Tracks," Reader's Digest, 2008.
[7] L. Rosellini, "Slasher Attack," Reader's Digest, 2008.
[8] T. Reid, Director, Sick Around the World. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2008.
[9] L. Woodhead, Director, How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2009.
[10] H. d. Soto, Director, Power of the Poor. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Station, 2008.
[11] D. Crandall, "Chapter 5: Sex, Gender, & The Person," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 55-62.
[12] "Headhunting," 2008.
[13] S. Williams, Director, Young and Restless in China. [Film]. United States of America: Ambrica Productions, 2008.
[14] D. Crandall, "Chapter 2: Current Anthropological Theory," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 19-33.
[15] D. Crandall, "Chapter 3: Doing Anthropology: How Academic "Truth" is Created," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 34-40.
[16] N. D. Kristof, "Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couples Don't," New York Times, pp. 114-116, 11 February 1996.
[17] A. M. Simmons, "Where Fat is a Mark of Beauty," Los Angeles Times, pp. 129-130, 30 September 1998.
[18] J. Diamond, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, pp. 1-6, 1987.
[19] J. Diamond, Director, Guns, Germs, and Steel. [Film]. United States of America: Lion Television, 2008.
[20] R. Hoess, in Commandant of Auschwitz, Cleveland and New York, The World Publishing Company, pp. 76-175.
[21] D. Crandall, "Chapter 6: Politics: Keeping the Order," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 63-72.
[22] The Manor House. [Film]. United States of America: Public Broadcasting Company, 2008.
[23] J. S. S. S. Nic Young, Director, America Revealed: The Food Machine. [Film]. United States of America: Lion Television, 2008.
[24] P. Sen, Director, Triumph of the Nerds. [Film]. United States : Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1996.
[25] D. Crandall, "Chapter 7: Making a Living: Economics & Life," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 73-87.
[26] D. Crandall, "Chapter 1: A Brief history of Anthropological Thought," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 3-18.
[27] D. Crandall, "Chapter 8: Humans & Ideas: Making Worlds Out of "Nothing"," in A Short Introduction to Anthropology, Provo, Brigham Young University, 2008, pp. 88-103.
[28] D. Crandall, "Knowing Human Moral Knowledge to be True: An Essay on Intellectual Conviction," Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 10, pp. 307-326, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment