Interpreting Different Cultures - Essay Example

INTERPRETING DIFFERENT CULTURES Introduction Louis Dumont believed that the diversity of culture among people of different communities does not necessarily mean that these people cannot have unity. In his statement, he indicates the particularity of a culture does not mean that this culture cannot be understood by another culture. This stance was a big stance especially because the book came after the world war and his argument was that just because people of different cultures are of different origin does not mean they cannot understand each other. This was important in the time in which he developed this theory because of two main issues. Number one, it was after the World War II which to a greater extent was seen to have been a war of cultures. Secondly, it was during the cold war which was a continuation of the world war, again an issue of misunderstanding between cultures. There are many scholars in anthropology who have also tried to understand how the different cultures can understand each other and exist in the same environment. Shweder (1984, 89) for instance was an ardent researcher in cultural issues was an advocate for cultural pluralism. As Barnard and Spencer (2009, 58) say, cultural pluralism is a description of how smaller cultures can cohabit within a larger cultural fabric. Shweder specifically studied the multicultural community of Orissa in India and believed that it was possible for cultures to be able to understand each other despite their divergence and particularity. As an advocate of cultural pluralism, he could have easily agreed with Dumont on the fact that divergence in culture does not necessarily mean that cultures cannot maintain unity and harmony while maintaining their uniqueness and diversity1. He saw culture as a way for people to express themselves on personal and community levels and therefore this does not mean that two or more cultures do not have the ability to understand each other. His work also involved cultural wars and recognizes that even as divergent cultures can find a way to achieve harmony, sometimes, based on the nature of certain types of cultural pluralism, it can be hard for these cultures to be in unity. However, his views with regard to cultural pluralism indicates that he would totally agree with Dumont that the unity of culture does not have to be achieved by scarifying diversity Geertz (1973, 78) on the other hand has written a number of works with regard to culture in the context of anthropology. He subscribes to the idea that each culture develops as a tree, with the roots of culture being the ancestors of a particular group that hand down this culture in the form symbols which are then used to develop as well as understand culture. Geertz2 would probably agree with Dumont in that he believes that each culture is fundamentally different only as a way for the people in the particular culture to identify their identity. He was an advocate for cultural symbolism which postulates that people within a culture uses symbols to not only create an identity for themselves but also to create meaning for their lives. Furthermore, he was a great advocate for thick description3. In the context of anthropology thick description is a way to meticulously describe a culture so that the symbols of that particular culture are understood not only in meaning nut also in context (Wilhite 2007, 29). It is a way to not only understand why certain people do some actions but to understand that meaning within the context of that culture. For instance, to understand why Japanese bow their heads while creating each other, it is not enough to just understand that this is a sign of respect among them, but it is necessary to get the deeper meaning in the context of the Japanese culture. Through thick description, it is possible for one person from another culture to be able to understand the cultures of others, despite the particulate of this culture. Dumont also refers to this kind of scenario where the distinctness and particularity of another culture can be understood by those from other cultures. His quote refers to the fact that despite differences in culture and their particularities, these cultures can still understand each other. His philosophy with regard to this issue can be best understood by looking at the role of culture in any society. The role of culture can be said to give the people of that particular culture a meaning. The culture gives the particular people a meaning of society as well as a meaning of self at the individual level. In this regard, it is not hard for one culture to understand the other because while they are not supposed to understand the meaning of the other culture, they can understand that the other culture has a purpose for those who uphold it. This is just like the way individuals interact. Each individual is different and unique in their own ways but this does not make it hard for them to understand each other. In fact, this individuality makes it easy for people to understand each other because it delivers a kind of self-knowledge and self-awareness which then makes one to understand that the other people are different, for a purpose. At the individual level, it is only after one person finds his own identity that he can be able to understand the identities of the others. Yet, even as the person understands the identities of the others, he does not necessarily understand them to the very particularities of their individualities. Rather, his knowledge of self and identity demarcates him from what other people are and this leads to mutual understanding between two people. This is what Dumont could be referring to with regard to culture. While one culture may be different from the others, this does not make it impossible for the culture to be able to understand the others. Just like individuals are fundamentally different from each other both at DNA level and at personality levels yet they understand each other, the different cultures can and do indeed understand each other. In fact, it is the differences in culture that brings an understanding of each other. A better understanding of Dumont’s statement can be understood by looking at the two fundamental pillars that it has. These two pillars of Dumont’s statement are thus; Unity in diversity Dumont’s statement argues that unity of humans (cultures) does not come by the sacrificing diversity. In his view, the diversity of cultures does not have to be sacrificed in the attempt to create unity or understanding between different divergent cultures. In fact, it is the diversity that makes the understanding of each culture possible. His argument seems to border on the idea that this diversity is necessary for the cultures to understand each other. In this kind of argument, assimilation then has no place in the bid to bringing the different cultures together. Each culture should be uniquely different in order for it acquire identity and to be able to be recognized by the other cultures. If one culture is assimilated by the other, this will not bring in harmony but will only lead to more misunderstanding. This seems to agree with Shweder (1984) who argued that each culture has its own identity or particularity. Unity as a result of difference Dumont’s argument also indicates that unity, or rather understanding between two groups of people, only needs an understanding of each other. Just like humans understand each other by first getting their own identity and then knowing that each other human have their own identities, so does one culture need to have its own identity in order to contribute fully to the population of cultures that are available. Understanding these two pillars in Dumont’s argument is important. The first issue that is tabled is the issue of unity in diversity. How can cultures be diverse and still accommodate each other? Common sense would likely make it look that diversity is only a recipe for collision and not collaboration. Yet, Dumont says that the opposite is the reality with regard to culture. He argues that it is diversity that makes it possible for cultures to understand each other. Secondly he argues that these cultures must have their own identity in order for understanding between them to be achieved. Back to the analogy of human beings and how the development of their identities helps them to understand each other, it is necessary to understand how humans develop. At birth, humans do not have the cognitive ability to have their own identity. The cognitive abilities are not developed enough at birth and the development starts later. As the child starts to develop his or her cognitive abilities at the age of about four, the child starts to know who he is and that he is different from others4. This understanding is what helps the child to be able to understand that the other people are different and now this creates the basis of understanding the other people in terms of their particularities and in terms of that they are people with different identities. The same can be said of culture. It is only when each culture gets its own identity that they can be able t understand each other. This is what the second point in Dumont’s argument is; that each culture should have its own identity and these many identities should then be able to relate with each other. Dumont’s theory and reality The critical question that must be answered is whether Dumont’s claim can be feasible in reality. Can diverse cultures be able to live with each other in harmony, especially a harmony that is expected to be achieved through diversity of cultural identities? The truth is that diversity will always bring in some conflict. The conflict between cultures will always exist and this makes is necessary to ask whether Dumont’s theory is feasible in practice. However, even in this, it is necessary to note that the unity of cultures does not mean that there will not be any conflicts. The same applies for human interactions; just because people are different but understand each other does not necessarily mean that there are no conflicts between them. However, they are able to maintain an agreeable level of positive relationships between them even in conflict. The same happens with regard to different cultures where there can be conflict between cultures but still there will be enough level of understanding between the cultures to allow these divergent cultures to be able to exist together. What culture was Dumont talking about? Dumont argues that divergence between cultures can be maintained while gaining unity. However, cultures come in all levels. What Dumont could have been talking about is the cultures that are different in terms of origin. This is the culture that has been developed in the manner that Geertz (1973) identified. This is a process of handling down of culture through symbols. This kind of culture develops in distinct cultural identities such as comparing the French culture and the American culture. However, there are those cultures that develop within other cultures. A good look is the American culture. While the American culture may be considered as a single culture, it is also necessary that there are subcultures hat develop within this larger culture. For instance, in the USA, there is conservative and progressive culture. These two cultures while different in a number of ways are not fundamentally different and so cannot qualify to be in the category that Dumont is talking about. These two subcultures fail to have the particularities that Shweder (1984, 82) talked about and therefore may not be relevant in the case of analyzing how divergent cultures relate with each other. Conclusion Culture is a necessary part of any society. Not only does each society have their own culture that defined them, but these cultures may conflict in some instances. The need for different cultures to relate well is imminent in a global world that people live in today. Dumont’s argument has fundamental impacts on how the world is going to be able to live in harmony, even as globalization makes this large planet into a village where cultures from all over the world continue to collide and mesh with each other. Bibliography Barnard, Alan and Spencer, Jonathan. Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London, UK: Routledge, 2009. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973. Shweder, Richard. Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Wilhite, David. Tertullian the African: An Anthropological Reading of Tertullians Context and Identities. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Read More