The American Cultural Configuration

In the text, “The American Cultural Configuration” the authors express the desire of anthropologists to study their own culture despite the difficulty that one faces attempting to subjectively analyze their own society. Holmes and Holmes (2002), use the adage “not being able to see the forest through the trees” (p. 5) to refer to how hard it is for someone to study something they have largely taken for granted. The Holmes' article focuses predominately on paradoxes within our own culture, many of which we don't notice. In a paradox, two contradicting statements can appear to be true at the same time. This essay looks at two paradoxes commonly found in everyday life: the individual versus the family and religion.

When you think about family, what is the first thing that comes to mind? If you only thought about your parents or close relatives then you may have been caught in an “individual vs. family” paradox. Nearly every culture considers family important, but “many Americans have never even met all of their cousins” (Holmes & Holmes, 2002, p.19). We say we are family oriented, but not caring to meet all of our extended family seems to contradict that. Individual freedoms, accomplishments, and goals are all American ideals that push the idea of individualism. What's important to note is that family or even the concept of family itself doesn't appear in any of those ideals. Holmes and Holmes (2002), observed that “The family reunions of yesterday are now rare, and when they occur they are often a source of stress.” (p. 19) That quote solidifies one reason why family interaction today is : it's just too stressful, so we avoid it. Where does marriage fit into our culture of individuals? Marriage itself may be less of a family unifying event than a way for two individuals to obtain personal happiness; the climbing divorce rate alone seems to suggest the devaluation of commitment in a relationship. Likewise, the Holmes and Holmes (2002) state “marriage is in effect a continuation of courtship” (p. 19) In my opinion, I would have to agree with the authors on family and marriage, considering the above-stated facts and trends. If we, as a nation, can place the individual so far above our own relatives, are we not creating a future of selfishness?

Religious views are virtually unquantifiable on their own, but the effects of those views are very much measurable.