Who Is This?

Frank, a forty-something software engineer in Southern California.
Weblogs Of Special Merit
Reciprocal Links
Referrers
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34

May 6, 2003

Culture

Cultural differences and human similarities.

Conrad over at The Gweilo Diaries takes serious issue with an assertion of mine in his post Cultural Differences. The assertion he has a problem with is this one:

Remember: The next time you see a person with a skin color different from yours, from a different country or with a different accent, bear in mind that they are just like you are.
He calls this "balderdash" and bases this opinion upon his experience of living "among people whose skin color, nationality, language, accent and/or religion were different from my own." He claims that there is something "fundimentally [sic] different" about the inhabitants of Saigon and Lagos (Nigeria, I assume, since I don't think he was referring to Portugal). He then asks:
How come Saudis are flying planes into buildings and not Swedes? How come the children of Chinese immigrants fill America's best universities while those of Mexican immigrants do not? How come resource poor Singapore is rich while nearby resourse [sic] rich Jakarta is poor?
Finally, he indirectly accuses me of believing in the Jeffersonian ideal of equality and of being "frightfully misinformed about the way the world really is."

Well, hell. I really didn't expect that kind of response (hell, I didn't expect someone as conservative as Conrad to even read my blog). Since he has made all of these assertions, though, I guess I'll respond.

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a software engineer living in a beach city that is a suburb of Los Angeles. I've lived here for some fifteen years, having moved here from Texas. In school I took a minor in psychology and it has been a major interest of mine ever since. Finally, while I've never lived overseas as Conrad does, I have been to China a couple of times and am in fact married to a woman from HangZhou. No, I'm not an expert, but I'm hardly uninformed, either.

Sure, there are differences between cultures. There are even differences between individuals within cultures. Culture, though, is a thin veneer that provides the rules of behavior within a society. Certainly those rules can seem very surprising to a member of another culture, and sometimes the rules are very hard to understand when one is accustomed to unconscious adherence to a quite different set of rules. I know this very well indeed, since I've had to understand a lot about my wife's native culture in order to understand some of her behaviors and the reasons for them. Culture, however, is learned. There are many, many things about being human that are not learned, and it is to those I was referring when I said "they are just like you are."

What are some of those unlearned behaviors? Well, a set of behaviors that spring immediately to mind are those surrounding human gregariousness. All human cultures have some form of family. While not all may reflect the so-called "nuclear family" of the West (one man, one woman, children), they all have some social grouping that is recognizable as a "family" to virtually all other cultures. The fact that there are, in fact, rules for social behavior makes us alike, as well. Not the rules themselves, they can vary widely, but the fact that there are rules. As it happens, some of the rules are more or less the same across cultures. Respect of elders, some hierarchy of authority, specific gender roles and others. Details may vary, but the fact that there are rules is a constant.

Another constant across cultures is the desire for and valuation of children. Not in general of course, many cultures (such as my own) tend to devalue children in the mass, but in individual cases this is not true. Individuals may vary, but in general healthy people want and value their own children. This is as true among the Zulu as it is in Manhattan, as true in Tokyo as it is in London. The outpouring of support for that poor Iraqi boy who lost almost his entire family and both of his arms cut across cultures because the report made an individual out of that child, which appealed to the potential parent in all most of us.

Then there are all of the basic human needs. Food, shelter, clothing, health, sleep, sex. Conrad should be able to relate to the last, right enough. The very fact that he is successful in his forays into the nightlife of various Asian cities reflects the fact that his sexual desires are shared by those whose cultures are different than his. Besides sex, though, we all need enough to eat, somewhere safe to sleep and someplace to keep the rain, snow or sun off. We all need our health, as well, so we can continue to meet those other needs.

This leads to Abraham Maslow's needs hierarchy. This is one of the bases of modern psychology and one of the first things one learns when studying the science. Maslow outlined a hierarchy of human needs ranging from the strictly physical to psychological needs such as self-respect and the respect of others. While I don't entirely agree that all of Maslow's needs are common across all cultures, many of those needs certainly are universal. Being part of a community, being respected, being safe, all are as true in Africa as they are in Europe, as common in Hong Kong as they are in Sao Paulo.

It is easy to look at somone and only see the superficial, the surface. There has been and continues to be a lot of tragic misunderstanding due to simple differences of culture. Looking past culture can be difficult, sometimes extraordinarily difficult. For myself, remembering that my wife is often motivated strongly by "face," the set of rules in her culture that govern social standing, is one of the more difficult. "Face" is a concept that is quite foreign to those of us who have grown up in a Western culture. Fortunately for the future of my marriage, though, it is possible for me to learn that concept and, if necessary, follow it, since it is relatively superficial. It is merely one of the rules of her culture. When it comes to being human, however, there is no difference at all.

Why did Saudis fly the planes into those buildings and not Swedes? Not because Saudis are different from Swedes, but because the circumstances of the Saudis, the culture they were a part of, led to it. In similar conditions, the Swedes might very well do similar things. Why do Chinese children fill the best universities in the US while Mexican children do not? Because Chinese cultural values lead to the very strong desire, even obsession, to succeed in school, whereas Mexican cultural values do not. I might add that the American culture isn't too great about that, either. Despite our children being a part of American culture, though, my wife and I plan to inculcate in them some of the Chinese values. If Mexican culture were such that it shared the Chinese value of hard work in academic pursuits, the Mexican children would do as well as the Chinese. It's not the people, it's the culture. It's not that people are different, it's that the rules by which they live vary.

Conrad, you mistake superficial cultural differences for essential differences between people. You're right, cultures are different, but that doesn't mean that the people themselves are also different. The people are the same, and if you can look past the culture you can see that. In my (admittedly limited) experience, what has amazed me has not been the differences, although those have been obvious enough. It has, instead, been the similarities that have left me shaking my head in awe at just how alike human beings are, at just how much we all have in common with one another.

So I stick by my assertion that those people from different countries, from different cultures, with odd accents and skin color, are indeed just like we are. I think I have all the proof I need that this is true. And, therefore, there is no need to be afraid of them, which was my point in the first place.

UPDATE (May 7, 14:55 PDT): I fixed up the paragraph about Maslow's Needs Hierarchy. This thing is getting enough attention that leaving it like it was was getting a little embarassing. Thanks for all the kind words from you folks, by the way.

Posted by Frank at May 6, 2003 8:12 PM
Comments

Sigh. Is the person a member of Gene Expression or one of its affiliated blogs? If so, he is coming from the 'scientific' racism position. It is surprisingly popular in the blogosphere and I am one of the few people who seems to care. They are particularly interested in recruiting white men and Asians. (They grant Asians intelligence as a 'natural trait,' but not leadership ability thereby maintaining their belief in white supremacy.) You may be approached. Quite a few men in white-Asian interracial marriages participate.

Posted by: Mac Diva at May 7, 2003 1:13 AM

First off - if you're interested in Michael Moore's outright fabrications (including cutting and pasting video to make fake audio clips) in Bowling for Columbine, please read this in the interests of intellectual honesty.

Ok - that said:

Clearly there are biological human universals, and you seem to have a pretty reasonable take on things. I agree that as far as possible, knowledge of our shared humanity should be taken into account in making policy decisions. I respectfully disagree that our shared humanity should prevent us from demonizing terrorists and their ilk, however. Cultural differences may be "programmable", but not after a certain point in life. Violent fundamentalists/totalitarians need to be opposed, and if that means demonizing them to rally the masses, well, I'm all for it. I'm sure the men of the SS, the KGB, and the Taliban liked sex - but that shared humanity doesn't excuse their actions or (more to the point) exempt them from our condemnation/military action.


I think, though, that you have to grant that the prospect of nontrivial human biological differences "under the hood" is still uncertain. Obviously someone whose ancestors were mainly or entirely from the area we now know as China is *genetically* different from someone whose ancestors were mainly or entirely from the area we now know as Germany. You can come up with boundary cases, but if you make my statement more exact (statistically representative samples of populations with most ancestors in a geographically defined region), it still holds.

The question is whether those differences are *entirely* cosmetic - not whether genetic differences exist at all, as it is beyond doubt that they do. It is an article of faith among many (the blank slaters) that the differences are entirely cosmetic, and among many (the clan/race advocates) that this is not the case. I think it will probably turn out that there are nontrivial genetic differences in behavior between groups, and that such differences impact the cultures developed by such groups. Mac Diva will no doubt protest, but I don't think it's evil to think that.

Posted by: stevens at May 7, 2003 7:26 AM

As far as "Bowling for Columbine," I merely used that as a jumping-off point. It's irrelevant to my main theme.

As far as genetic variation between "races," even a casual scan of current literature shows that it is by no means certain as to the extent and significance of such variation. There is quite a bit of evidence, actually, that individual variation actually overwhelms interracial variation. And note that such differences only govern physical variation at some level, not behavior.

The only thing that is incontrovertibly true at this point is that human beings are all one species, all much, much more alike than they are different. Whether this makes interracial genetic variation "trivial" depends, I guess, on your definition of "trivial." Compared to the difference between human beings and the most closely related other species, chimpanzees, yes, the differences are indeed trivial, even insignificant. And we share 95% or more of our genome with chimpanzees.

Since I don't particularly buy into the "good" versus "evil" dichotomy, I don't think that it's "evil," per se, to think as you do. On the other hand, I believe that such an outlook is at best useless and at worst pernicious. As I said above, these differences, assuming they are significant, govern physical attributes only. While behavior may be influenced in general by inheritance, it is very clear that cultural behaviors are learned. Possibly the best evidence for this is in the "melting pot" of the United States. Children that are raised in this culture adopt the values and behaviors of this culture, even though it might directly contradict those of their parents and grandparents. In this situation, genetic inheritance is pretty obviously insignificant in terms of behavior.

Posted by: Frank Mayhar at May 7, 2003 8:01 AM

Do you look at your tracking reports, Frank? Am wondering because I did not notice you reading about your debate with Conrad at Silver Rights.

Stevens, you know you're wrong. It is already known that differences among members of so-called races are broader genetically than between or among 'races.' For example, a tall Asian has more in common with a tall African than he does with a short Asian genetically. (Not to mention that 'Asian' in itself is far from precise.) That is because a broad array of genes controls height, negating the smaller arrays controlling skin color or epicanthic folds. The same kind of explanation applies to other traits.

Posted by: Mac Diva at May 7, 2003 1:32 PM

Thanks for the pointer. No, I hadn't noticed. Looks like I have some more blushing to do. (Who would'a thunk this would receive this kind of attention?)

Posted by: Frank at May 7, 2003 3:06 PM

You have a fan in my blog son, Prometheus 6, too. I can't get the link to work, but you can scroll the page for the entry. Here's his intro:

WARNING: This is a white guy I'm linking to. Won't be the last, either.

LOL!

See Prometheus 6.

Posted by: Mac Diva at May 7, 2003 6:31 PM

Yeah, I'm a Maslow fan too. The Needs Hierarchy is a big help in figuring out why someone holds a belief I find bizarre or uninformed. I just scan the list, whether from bottom to top or top to bottom depends on how charitable I'm feeling, until I find a level from which the view makes sense.

Posted by: Prometheus 6 at May 8, 2003 9:04 AM

I hadn't really thought of using the hierarchy in that way. Hmm. It would probably work, wouldn't it?

In general, though, I just think that Maslow is required reading if you want to understand how human beings operate. His isn't the last word by any means, but he had some very important insights into the basis for many of our behaviors. The needs hierarchy is an indispensable building block of modern psychology. Probably even a "cornerstone."

Posted by: Frank at May 8, 2003 9:31 AM

"ALL stereotypes are , in essence , true ."

- - - - some famous guy , I don't remember who .

_____ russ conner

Posted by: ojsbuddy at May 8, 2003 1:37 PM

...except for the ones that aren't.

Posted by: Frank at May 8, 2003 2:09 PM

5 %

Posted by: ojsbuddy at May 8, 2003 8:18 PM

You forgot the "9" that goes in front of the "5," there.

Posted by: Frank at May 8, 2003 8:27 PM

All Rights Reserved