The first area, communication, is, in fact, the first way one can usually use to identify a person with a different background than themselves. Language, “a systematic set of symbols and signs with learned and shared meanings,” is the most obvious difference amongst cultures (190). If you and another person don’t speak the same language, then you can tell you are not a part of the same language meaning making group.
Indeed, “ethnocentric” principles come into play when one not only recognizes the different cultures behind languages but also applies a hierarchical class system to which language has priority (194). For instance, Miller says that “although sign languages are complete and complex languages in their own right, they are often treated as second-class languages” (192).
Eurocentrism also exists in language. The current view is that Americans are stupid for being largely monolingual. However, this view fails to take into account that languages are found much closer together in Europe than in America. Thus, languages are learned out of necessity rather than because of the universal higher intellects of Europeans.
Americans, sadly, are also proponents of an ethnocentric ideal, though. They tend to view the language or accents of the newest immigrating group as inferior. I have said before in my blog that my family ditched Gaelic and their Irish accents for just this reason. Immigrants that speak only Spanish, however, have it much harder because they have to learn an entirely new language and are expected to do so as soon as they enter the country. Most people with this American ethnocentric view also refuse to learn Spanish, denigrating the language as gibberish.
There are also gestures—“movements, usually of the hands, that convey meanings. Some gestures may be universally meaningful, but most are culturally specific and often completely arbitrary”—which most people rarely think about (192). Consequently, nonverbal communication can be one of the easiest ways to offend someone from a different culture. (That article is hilarious, by the way.) For instance, how close do you stand to someone? Do you really think about it, or do you just do it? Well, the distance between people is usually a reflexive thing, and when someone invades your bubble, you probably back away. However, in countries such as Spain, they stand much closer together. Thus, if you move away, it is seen as somewhat offensive. It is the equivalent of someone talking to an American but keeping a room’s length between them. You might begin to try to interpret the action within your own shared cultural meanings: “Oh man, I must not have put on enough deodorant today.”
Another sure fire way to offend people is by talking about—you guessed it—religion. I know they say “never talk about religion, sex, or politics,” but, hey, let’s give it a whirl.
First off, what is religion? According to Barbara Miller, “religion consists of beliefs and behavior related to supernatural beings and forces. This definition specifically avoids linking religion with belief in a supreme deity, because some religions have no concept of a supreme deity whereas others have multiple deities” (212). Huh? Basically, all religions believe—and you should know up front that I’m going with magical ponies as a generalization—in a magical pony, many magical ponies, or the disembodied idea of a magical pony. And their pony is pretty much always the best. (In case you were wondering, I’m Buddhist. I hold with the disembodied idea of a magical pony, a.k.a. karma.)
(And why wouldn’t I? She’s clearly so much more stylin’ than your pony.)
In magic versus religion, religion is seen as the higher class belief. This is not surprising as many foundational thinkers were deeply religious. Also, religions have a lot of practitioners that express their beliefs through modern writings. Even Miller refers to a “magical religion in the modern world” as “so-called Wicca” (213).
But, what is the difference between magic and religion? Well, it’s a pretty fuzzy distinction, but Miller quotes Sir James Frazer in saying that magic is “people’s attempt to compel supernatural forces and beings to act in certain ways” while religion “is the attempt to please supernatural forces or beings” (212).
(Magic = I COMMAND YOU TO FLY, PONY!)
(Religion = I will brush your hair if you fly, pony. Pretty please?)
Now, we move on to “expressive culture, or behavior and beliefs related to art, leisure, and play” (236). Let’s jump right in and discuss that age old question.
(How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? No, I mean the other question. Sadly, woodchucks are still disinclined to chucking wood.)
What is art? Surprisingly, Miller presents one of the best definitions I have heard. She says that “art is the application of imagination, skill, and style to matter, movement, and sound that goes beyond the purely practical” (236). This definition is a lot more inclusive than, for instance, Eurocentric views on high-art being the only true art form.
(You might know it as ‘It’s not art unless someone is naked.’)
It is important to remember that “all cultures have art, and all cultures have a sense of what makes something art versus non-art” (236).
Actually, it is best to remember that cultures have different meanings and values for everything, including communication, religion, and art. So, try not to take yourself too seriously. It is okay to form opinions about these areas based upon the context of your own culture and experience. In fact, I encourage it. However, don’t expect others to conform to your ideas, and don’t vilify them when their ideas conflict with your own.
No comments:
Post a Comment