Cultural
determinism is an outdated theory that claimed that individuals were solely a
product of the culture that they were raised in and/or surrounded by. The
problem with this assertion is that it operates on the premise that cultures
are static and insular, which has been proven to not be true. Ideas travel like
trade winds around the globe to and from every continent, even more so now in a
world that puts increasing value in globalization. The three pieces that I will
be comparing in this blog are a quote from Corin et. al., a black and white
picture of a strait jacket, and a quote from Spiro. These three fragments
connect in a way that explains the flaws of cultural determinism yet explain the
objective and
subjective functions of culture in mental illness.
“In our study, traditional cultural etiologies
did not play a central role in shaping the experience of patients and their
families…when they do appear in narratives cultural etiologies usually emerge
as personal or familial formulations, which enable people to name feelings of
strangeness and alienation the experience.” (Corin et.al. 137)
“According
to one meaning [of cultural determinism], it is conceptions of mental illness
that are culturally determined, by which it is meant that these conceptions are
culturally constructed. According to a second meaning, the psychological
conditions that are believed to constitute mental illness are themselves
culturally determined, by which it is meant that these conditions are
culturally caused… regarding
this there is much disagreement.” (Spiro 224)
In
the first quote Corin et. al states that in the fieldwork they participated in,
cultural etiologies were not the dominant force in the experiences of mentally
ill patients in southern India. To me this is statement provides direct support
in the case of debunking the previous notion of cultural determinism. But it
does provide information into how the patients think of the perceptions of
their families and society. This statement is explaining how there are two
components to being conflicted with a disease: the etiology, or cause, of the disease,
and how you think the people around you perceive the disease which in the case
of mental illness often feeds into the feeling of alienation.
The
picture that I chose is of a strait jacket. The significance in this picture
lies in the very nature and use of strait jackets as a way to bind and confine
individuals. Similar to a strait jacket, cultural determinism is a theory that
claimed culture is a binding force for individual’s thoughts, actions, and
beliefs. If this were to be true, like a strait jacket, culture would be
something that confines, and limits the growth of those that participate in
said culture.
In
the second quote Spiro is explaining two applications of the phrase cultural
determinism. Here he is stating what we have discussed and know to be true;
anthropologists are in disagreement with the theory of cultural determinism.
These
two quotes and picture all relay a common message: cultural determinism was a
starting point of thought from anthropologists but was eventually seen to be a
restricting and limited concept with limited applications. First I will look at
the limited applications. Similar to how a strait jacket serves a purpose of
confining people, which can be used in a protective and positive manner;
cultural determinism has its uses in explaining how those in different societies
and cultures may view mental illness and diseases, but not provide them with explanations
of the cause. Now we can discuss the detriments of applying the theory of cultural
determinism. Through the fieldwork done in the two articles which the quotes
are taken, it was clear that the individuals afflicted with mental diseases in
South India didn’t have explanations of the cause of their diseases based on
their culture. Mental disease and their causes are as confusing to those in
India as they are to persons of the United States, United Kingdom, etc. These
three pieces come together to share the same message; culture is the beliefs,
actions, thoughts, knowledge, etc that shape the environment around individuals
but is NOT the sole variable in their determinations about health problems.
The
theory of cultural determinism although outdated in the study of anthropology,
can be a mindset of some individuals outside of field. Because of this way of
thinking racism and other inequalities are created and then applied. In this
blog I focused also on how culture DOES affect the subjective environment of
mental illnesses; which includes but is not limited to, familial/societal
expectations, and experiences of alienation. This makes a clear claim against
cultural determinism in a way that states: culture shapes the environment that
a patient is in at the time NOT how they think their disease came to be. As a
product of the 21st century, I am fully aware that we live in a
dynamic ever changing world. It is more than foolish to think that rural communities’
thoughts and experiences are affected any less. All people function in the same
way and our beliefs, actions, thoughts, experiences are shaped by similar forms
of information flow. It is important for everyone to recognize this and
eliminate the primitive and restrictive claim of cultural determinism.
-Brittany Peters-
Works Cited
Ber, Albert.
"Micro Fiction Challenge: The Straight Jacket." Albert
Berg's Unsanity Files. Word Press.com, 11 June 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2012.
<http://unsanityfiles.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/micro-fiction-challenge-the-straight-jacket/>.
Corin, Ellen, Rangaswami
Thara, and Ramachandran Padmavati. "Living Through a Staggering World: The
Play of Signifiers in Early Pyschosis in South India." N.p.: n.p., n.d.
110-45. Online.
Spiro, Melford E.
"Cultural Determinism, Cultural Relativism, and the Comparative Study of
Psychopathology." Ethos 29.2 (2008): 218-34. Wiley Online Library. 3 Jan. 2008.
Web. 17 Oct. 2012.
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.2001.29.2.218/pdf>.
In this blog comment I will be specifically addressing the concept of cultural determinism and its ineffectiveness in accurately capturing all the factors that influence one’s perception. I agree with Peter’s final comment that it “is important for everyone to recognize [that everyone is shaped in similar ways] and eliminate the primitive and restrictive claim of cultural determinism”, and would like to expand upon her idea. Although cultural determinism isn’t the sole basis for an individual’s perception, a person’s culture still provides the foundation for how we view the world.
ReplyDeleteBefore explaining why the concept of cultural determinism is still important, despite the fact that it is widely accepted as an outdated theory, its historical roots shed light on why at one time it was accepted as true. In my honors European History class, we read parts of Niccolo Machiavelli’s "The Prince". Though overall it was a call to action for the European monarchies and aristocrats to employ “the ends justify the means” philosophy to maintain power in 16th Century Europe, Machiavelli also relates the political system of a state to its culture. He argues that political systems, despite its seemingly universal nature, will always contain elements of the society that is utilizing it. Machiavelli didn’t coin the phrase cultural determinism, but he does touch on how culture permeates many aspects of societal thinking that don’t seem to have a strong connection to culture. Having said that, it’s also important to think about how the socialhistorical context of an era is intertwined with the concept of cultural determinism. Back in the 16th Century, the world was connected by winding trade routes, local district meetings, and the autocracy of the aristocratic class— a vastly different and less reliable system compared to the power of today’s internet and media. As the societies back then were less exposed to influences outside of their local culture, it makes sense that cultural determinism was accepted and further developed. It was more reliable to judge things based on what was local or known instead of going along with the influence of a far away source. However, with the rapid globalization of the past century and the exponentially growing development of technology, cultural determinism has been rendered an antiquity in our current era of modernization. Even though its influence has been largely swallowed, the ideas behind cultural determinism still hold a little merit, not as a sweeping generalization, but on a more individual level. When we are young, our culture, taught indirectly or directly by trusted adults, is our haven. It teaches us what is considered acceptable and provides a common, unconscious basis when interacting with others. Furthermore, it anchors us when we are exposed to a myriad of influences and peer pressure during the process of growing up. I think that it’s during this process of maturing that we depend less on the basis of our own culture to make decisions and begin piecing together our own individual cultures, in a sense “globalizing” ourselves on a personalized level just like the world is globalizing on a macroscopic level. Though cultural determinism as a phrase is limiting in the way it fails to take into account the complexities of an individual’s personal experiences, it still has a basis in truth.
What I will be addressing in Brittany’s blog the topic of cultural determinism and why my opinions on this long thought about topic. She presented both sides to this theory and did a good job at presenting each sides view on cultural determination. Like many people I didn't know a lot about cultural determinism which is obviously a big topic and has been in anthropology for a long time. After lecture, readings, and this blog I have a pretty clear understanding of this theory.
ReplyDeletePersonally I came from a very different culture than the American culture, even though I was born here in the United States. So at first I was definitely against this cultural determinism theory because I am not at all restricted like a stray jacket to my culture. I am not, “solely a product of the culture that they [I] were raised in and/or surrounded by”. I am very open minded and think outside of my culture. I am by no means restricted to my culture. I think that culture does have a lot to do with the way of thinking and viewing things whether if that be personal issues, society, or medical issues. Culture is the first thing that we are exposed to and learn in that way. But going against the cultural determinism theory, I think that as human beings we are always filling with knowledge whether be from academic education or from interacting with people and society. We are always learning new ways of thinking or ways of perception. Especially in locations like the United States where is such a wide array of cultures that in many cases adapting to different cultures and being less enclosed with one culture is becoming more and more common. Just like for example. Medically speaking culturally an illness in my culture is due to spiritual issues with ancestors. In which this results in a spiritual ceremony. But I as well as my family also turn to American biomedicine for treatment if the sickness is severe. There is a balance between culture and biomedicine because of our exposure and knowledge about biomedicine in the American culture. Just as we have read in many class readings and lecture, that culture and biomedicine play a huge role in all aspects of society, medicine, etc. As I have said before there has to be a balance between the two to better the health of everyone. Just as we have read in the article about the Russian immigrants and diabetes. Education on both parts is definitely key to not only benefit the health of patients but also help doctors do their job at to the best that they can. With the strictness of the cultural determinism theory, I have concluded in agreement with Brittany that this theory should be eliminated. In today’s world we are all shaped in similar ways even if it is not 100% evident. We are not only a product of our culture because there are so many things that influence culture outside of one culture itself.