Jun

13

Intersection of Shweder, American Cultural Patterns, and Phenomenology

June 13, 2010 | posted by Ryan |

I was sitting outside, sipping a caramel late and had a moment where numerous interests collided like 3 drunken ravers in a mosh pit. As some of you may know, Richard Shweder wrote a book called Thinking Through Cultures: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology (1991) wherein he describes three basic ways of thinking of the world: Universalism, Evolutionism (also called Developmentalism), and Relativism. Universalism basically says there is one ground of being underneath it all. Evolutionism agrees, but adds that we (or different cultures) are all at different stages of development toward fully realizing that underlying ground of being. Relativism (or Cultural Relativism) challenges the idea of a single reality, instead proposing multiple realities, each of which may be unique enough to thwart assumptions from transversing between realities. Shweder’s text and concepts are the first of the drunken rave-goers in this story.

The second rave-goer is a text written by Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (1991). This text describes a number of differences between various cultures, and in particular describes the differences between languages. For example, English maintains a structured relationship between subjects and objects while also being fairly action oriented whereas Chinese maintains a less polarized, more relational linguistic bent between subjects and objects, focusing on the continuum between polar opposites rather than on the ends of the spectrum. Another way Stewart and Bennett describe the difference is that English may be more digital and Chinese more analog. An example, dear Watson? Let us take family relationships and some event X that happens in the family. If one is raised using a language with very specific, hierarchical language around family dynamics and depending on context and formality the use of language changes, then the event within the family will be described using those same terms. However, if translated, let’s say, into English much of those formal, linguistic, relationship-specific words could easily be lost, and thus the description and full appreciation of the *experience* of the event changes.

In comes the third drunkard, careening toward the other two. This drunkard is that of the research method called phenomenology, and in particular the difference between classical phenomenology and what is at times called hermeneutic phenomenology. In classical phenomenology (or p-nom for short in this post), a reseacher may bracket his or her preconceptions, set aside these biases, and access the event at hand in a rather objective way. In hermeneutic p-nom there is a continual assumption that culture (and personal experience / bias) will always get in the way. Thus, according to hermeneutic p-nom there is no direct access of the experience, only direct access of one’s own experience of the experience, as experienced through one’s own cultural and personal lenses as it were.

KA-POW!! Stumbling, reeling, and a general sense of dishevelment and dizziness fill the air.

Ok, so what does this mean? Well, if one were to take a universalist perspective, then there does exist phenomena that occur at a ground of being level, that everyone may access. If one speaks English, then that experience is likely going to be described in polarized, action-oriented language that is not especially descriptive, and if one falls within the classical p-nom camp then one could, with some meditation and concentrated effort, set aside one’s biases and “get at” the real p-nom that occurred. HOWEVER, note that the permutation above is only one of many, many combinations. If one were relativist, then one would likely also be a hermeneutic p-nom advocate, and thus would also realize the complications of language to describe any event as a more descriptive language would give great, specific detail while another may focus more on the relationship of the event to some other event. If one were a evolutionist/developmentalist, then the event (or phenomenon) could be understood within a progressive perspective, noting that different descriptions of the event would necessarily point toward the different developmental levels of the individual (and her/his culture, language, etc.). An example here might be the difference between a 4 year-old’s description of a lunar eclipse and a 45 year-old’s description. But wait, what if they are from different cultures and speak different languages? Ah, then once again complexities arise and we might not be dealing with just a cognitively-based developmental difference.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, why do you go on? What is the purpose? Well, that is the point. The reeling that is. The point is to acknowledge that the drunken rave-goers have collided, and that at some point a stance must be taken in order to regain balance (at least momentarily until we can start dancing again). I am searching for my balance, are you?

[Posted in Random Thoughts & Research]



Comments

Comments are closed.

Speak your mind...

Live preview:

CAPTCHA image

  • Blogs/Podcasts We Like

    • ITP Library Research Weblog - various research resources
    • Shrink Rap Radio - Podcasts by experienced therapist talking with notible folks in the field about everything you could think of.
    • The Merlin Show - A video podcast featuring Merlin Mann. Topics include: technology, communication, productivity, etc.


  • This site is:

  • And, this site is: