Continuing the previous Post, we ‘ll briefly define Culture from two perspectives to, then, reflect on its influence on personality development. According to Abbagnano[1], Culture may be defined in two ways: 1) as “(…) men’s “formation, their development, refinement (…)”, and 2) as “(…) the product of such formation, i.e, it is a set of cultivated ways of living and thinking, known as civilization” (p.209). From the 17th century on, scientific thought or rationalization surpassed religion as the most important producer of truths regarding the world and human nature. Rationalization brings along with it another conviction that starts to be taken for granted: men’s free will[2]. It offers a counterpoint for the loss of purpose/meaning in life, which was previously guaranteed by Christianity post-death redemption. During this process, the meaning of Culture semantically slipped and started being intrinsically associated with the idea that free will would enable people to create purpose and meaning to their lives. According to Kant: “Culture is the result of being able to choose their own goals and purpose, in rational beings”[3]. We will not dig into this discussion because it is beyond our knowledge and the intent of this essay. To our purpose, it is enough to state that Culture permeates all levels of identity development, although, alone, is not sufficient to explain the causes of individual symptoms, i.e, why people develop peculiar disorders or dysfunctional patterns.
But…what exactly does that mean? How and at which levels Culture has an impact on personalities, interactions, and emotional disorders? Is there a consensual answer for these questions?
Considering Ego/identity’s formation, I’ll propose to reflect on Culture’s influence on identity development, in two broader senses:
1) Culture as Meta-narrative-in this case it would work as a fundamental structure which produces truths (most basic assumptions regarding human nature, for instance). They aren’t “logical truths”, such as 2+2=4. Instead, they are empirical. But that doesn’t mean they are relative or that have the same status of opinions. Assuming something as an essential truth over a period of time doesn’t mean to be a “relativistic”. Talking with Wittgenstein[4], something meant as an essential “truth” works as a mythology of origin, which is illustrated by the image of a hard rock limiting the course of a river or flow of a sea. Truth is not ethereal (hard rocks erode as time goes by), but if it works as a hard rock, it is a stable reference to limit course of rivers and the sea. Culture as a meta-narrative may be understood as the “largest truth container”. These truths work as a script/moral guideline for how to ethically behave in the world. We’ll refer to Culture, in this sense, as a “social psychological ground”.
To be continued on the next Post
[1]Abbagnano, N. 1982. Philosophy dictionary. São Paulo, p.209
[2] Free will is discussed since the Old Testament. Our purpose is to link it to Ego’s transformation along the centuries. Therefore, beyond being considered as a human nature constituent, free will starts working as aspiration, horizon of lives and/or happiness.
[3]Abbagnano, N. 1982.Philosophy dictionary. Crit. Do Juízo. Paragraph 83
[4] “The propositions describing this world-picture might be part of a kind of mythology. And their role is like that of rules of a game; and the game can be learned pure practically, without learning any explicit rule(…) The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river-bed of thoughts may shift. But I distinguish between the movement of waters on the river-bed and the shift of the bed itself; though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other(…) And the bank of that river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to only an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited”. Wittgenstein, L. On certainty.
Comments