Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities and differences between cultures
Similarities and differences between cultures
Cultural identity analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Similarities and differences between cultures
In The Politics of Recognition Charles Taylor explores the possibility that in order to affirm individuals' equal dignity, we must acknowledge their cultures. He claims that individual identities are socially and dialogically constructed. That is why recognition is important. It shows how the study of identity and its politics is very important in the effort to understand control and somehow reduce the occurrence of group conflicts. The views of others may not be the last word concerning our identities, but they are the first word. If so, misrecognition can damage and can be the basis of oppression and domination (p 25).
Charles Taylor argues that human identity is constituted by cultural group membership, and an individual's sense of self worth is thus deeply tied to the value that others attach to his or her cultural group. As a result of this "new understanding of the human social condition," cultural recognition can be construed as a necessary component of individual recognition, and misrecognition can reasonably be considered a form of oppression (Taylor, 1994: 25-26). If cultural group attachment is a feature of the human social condition, liberal theory had better deal with cultural group rights if it is to be relevant.
Such observations form the basis of several criticisms of what Taylor terms procedural liberalism. Taylor sees this form of liberalism as rooted in a Kantian view of the self in which the essential feature of the self is autonomy; procedural liberalism requires, in order to respect human dignity, a polity in which each person is able to conceive and pursue his or her own vision of the good.
Taylor argues that while procedural liberalism is committed to the view that different cultures are to be tolerated and respected, it also insists that we must live according to a common set of political rules uniformly applied. This kind of liberalism, he claims, is unable to vary basic rights in order to accommodate the survival requirements of minority cultures.
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
Today, the definition of the term “liberal” is relatively uncontested, and its content is relatively well defined. A liberal today is someone who advocates for governmental solutions to various problems, not for unaided individual freedom. Liberals today trust and call for governmental action, not for the type of self-determination supported by Hoover. Contemporary liberals believe in individual freedom, but they typically advocate f...
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
he argues in support of racial identity and flexibility complementing one another. This proves that the further society evolves, the closer mankind gets to eradicating the idea of a dominant race. However, there are occasions where labels could hinder a person’s opportunity. In fact, culture is the newest label that society takes into account the most, and to a minority, the main goal is to embed the roots of the old generation into the next generation.
In her work, “Identity,” Carla Kaplan frames the difficulty of defining the term “identity.” She argues that identity is a tension because personal identity conventionally arbitrates taste and lifestyle, while social identity is regarded as a constellation of different and often competing identifications or “cultural negotiations” (Kaplan, 2007). In addition, she argues that identity politics has caused “suspicion and criticism” by limiting new democratic possibilities by encouraging narrow solidarities rather than broader identification resulting in the struggle for recognition becoming a questioning of recognition (Kaplan, 2007). Lastly, she argues that “A realistic identity politics” is needed to recognize that identities are multiple/dynamic
Identity is defined as the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known. There is personal identity and even national identity and, even though everyone in society’s identities can change very quickly, it can convince one of doing almost anything. Without religion as a source of identity, it became fundamentally easy for ideas and ideology such as communism, social norms, and communism to became a person’s identity instead. After all, society’s citizens are always looking to unite through each of their identities.
Identity is one of the main questions throughout all of our readings, because it is hard for people to accept who they are in society. Accepting their identity as a minority with little if any freedoms sparks many of the social problems which I will show happening in all communities and cultures. The main issue we will discuss is how social environments effect the search for identity. The Mexicans in the U.S. module gives us examples how Mexicans try to keep their customs while living in a discriminated environment by the Whites. This module also gives us examples how people are searching for personal identity while struggling with cultural traditions. Finally, the African-American module gives us more examples to compare with the Mexicans in the U.S. module, because these readings deal with Blacks finding personal identity also through discrimination from the Whites. To properly understand the theme of identity, we must first look the factors influencing it.
Charles Taylor’s support of preserving cultures lies in the idea of a dialogical being. Taylor believes all humans to be dialogical which states that our identity is shaped by interactions with others. The dialogical self is constituted by it’s language, practices, and culture. Taylor then argues that misrecognition from those we interact with partly develops our identity and can inflict harm and oppression.
When a person has enough power in a society, it gives them a lot of control over certain things. When they have this control, they can have ownership over a person or a thing. By naming someone, or something, a person gains an unspoken ownership over him or her, they are now in control of him or her and it has created a new identity for them and erased their old identity. Power, naming and un-naming, control and ownership and identity are very important elements in “Mary” and “No Name Woman”. Both essays deal with power, identity, control and ownership, while “Mary” focuses more on naming and “No Name Woman” focuses on un-naming.
On the other hand, liberalism’s main principles emphasise, human rights, individuality, equality before the law...
Personal identity in first world countries is often taken for granted. We have the ability to act however we please or be whatever we want without any real limitations. In George Orwell's, “1984”, identity is not taken for granted because personal identity does not exist. Orwell illustrates a vision of life where a totalitarian government eradicates individual identity. Winston Smith, the narrator of the novel, lives in a dystopian society where he and every other citizen struggle to maintain their own personal identity. The author suggests that individuals may struggle to maintain personal identity in a totalitarian government due to the lack of diversity this is because identity can only exist if the environment allows it to. Although if
Martha Nussbaum insists on differentiating the diverse historical strands within the Western tradition of liberalism. The idea of ‘negative liberty’, prevalent in much Western liberalism and reinscribed at the heart of neo-liberalism, suggests that rights are primarily protections against state interference. Neoliberalism is premised on the freedom of contract as the most basic value.
With power widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of the elite, pluralism complements democracy and ensures that those in charge respect the concerns and interests of the individual. In conclusion, it can be seen that pluralism and toleration are widely supported by liberals since they promote individual sovereignty whilst benefiting society at the same time.
In today's society, with the advent of modern digital communication and an increased focus upon global society and diversity, humans have a golden opportunity to evaluate themselves and how they identify both individually and in their broader culture. Although the question of “who am I” is perhaps one of the classical questions of the human cognizance of identity, our identity as both groups and individuals is directly related to the culture we are a part of, especially in regards to whether that culture is determined to be individualistic or collectivist. These differing mindsets have an inherent connection to the way that we view ourselves and the impact of interactions between different cultures.
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have