Cultural identity
The individual cultural identity is shaped by the people to whom a person belongs, and three major factors contribute to the development of that identity among any given society: historical, linguistic, and psychological.
Diop, C. A. (1991) posited that the historical factor gives us that "feeling of historical continuity lived by the totality of the collective". The linguistic factor, on the other hand, is a significant component, and is viewed as the "characteristic par exellence", affirms Diop, of cultural identity. And lastly, the psychological factor has played an important role in giving specifics sociocultural traits to different people throughtout history, although inadequately because the assesment on which it was based has been the product of taking into account, first and foremost, the literary output of those people and judging them accordingly; consequently, a better approach to the "psychic" factor, Diop proposed, should be initiated in a scientific fashion, including, among others, the unchanging relationships- from a cultural and psychological standpoint- that are still present in different societies even after radical sociopolitical upheavals that have ocurred within them (e.g., the aesthetic feelings which characterizes some cultures).
Therefore, Diop presented a framework for a systematic study on intercultural relations which considers not only the specificity of the linguistic expressions - with its limitations, notwithstanding-, but, also, this analysis should examine the levels "where the fundamental elements of the culture are elaborated", as well as those that "correspond to the universal [sic] concepts", that is, the values, norms, folkways, mores, and traits that are found in all cultures; and, in addition, the permanent or unchanging relationships still present within the society, which should be given special attention.
Although Diop was referring to the study of African societies for the most part, this framework, I consider, is necessary to properly evaluate other societies, and can be applied to the analysis of other cultures. A case in point, for instance, is the Cuban experience.
When Castro took the power in the island, Cuba was, for the most part, a prosperous nation, even though that it suffered from some maladies observed in many Latinamerican countries at that time, and even to some extent today, such as autocratic regimes, a culture of "caudillismo", unstable democracy, and so forth. However, economically, Cuba was considered the bridge of the Americas. The radical sociopolitical change brought by the Cuban Revolution, profoundily affected the cultural identity of the society. Most studies on the dynamics of the Cuban revolutionary process ignore the lower and intermediate strata while focus their attention to the leadership, and on how that leadership has been successful or not in managing the economy and opposing the "evil of imperialism". Fitzgerald (1994) made the point that further studies should include those actors, and, I should add that those actors are the ones that could permit us to examine accordingly the Cuban cultural identity.
First let me point out that Cuba before Castro was an example of a different kind of "capitalism" which, contrary to what some classical sociologists have conceptualized, has never been an unitary system (Eyal, Szelenyi & Townsley [2001]).
It is important to notice, also, that Cuba is an example on how "socialism" cannot be viewed - and sociologically studied, for that matter- as a single entity. I concur with Eyal, Szelenyi &Townsley that sociology should engage in an agenda of "comparative capitalisms", and, I must add, that it should engage in the study of "comparative socialisms", because there are many differences between the Cuban experience and the one lived by the European countries (we cannot forget other societies like the Korean and Chinese which have had a very different approach).
The Cuban Revolution has been a traumatic occurrence for that society, however, embedded within the Cuban cultural identity there are psychological traits that still remain unchanchanged, and, among them, we have the industriousness of the people.
Johnson (1997) stated that the growth of the Cuban community that emigrated to the United States has been impressive, even though the intentions by the Cuban regime to poison that community; Cuban-Americans have become " the richest and most influential political lobby after the Jewish Lobby, and its 2 million members generated a Gross Domestic Product eleven times larger than that of Cuba itself". And Miami, the capital of the Cuban Exile, as many Cubans find pleasure in referring to the city, became the "financial, economic, communications, and cultural center" that link the United States with the rest of Latin America. As Johnson concludes that the United States is indeed the grand beneficiary of the Cuban Exile, induced by the Cuban Revolution.
Now, the "socialistic" reforms brought by Castro and his associates did not teach industriousness to the Cuban people ( neither they taught the Cubans to play baseball, and dance, for instance), that was imbedded in the "psychic" of the people, and, when given the right conditions, it found a way to be developed once again and flourished, because everything that Miami represents today for the United States, Havana used to be before Castro took over.
We might conclude, then, that Diop's framework to assess appropriately the cultural identity of a group of people must include in that evaluation the permanent or unchanging relationships present in the society, and that their intransience is notorious even after radical sociopolitical upheavals have occured within them.
In addition, although this brief qualitative analysis intended to cover the outline given by Diop, is interesting to annotate that is necessary to address historical issues properly in order to enhance the quality of research that is done in sociology (Kiser & Hechter [1998]), and by which we are pretty much indebted to the works on that subject done by Max Weber. On this regard, we should ackowledge that a better understanding of these issues will allow us to put in proper perspective the shape of societies emerging from different kinds of "dysfunctional" capitalism- as I would rather refer to those societies that have a market economy but where the society itself is repressed of expressing themselves openly and with institutions heavely corrupted-, as well as societies emerging from "socialism".
What do you think?
Diop, C. A. (1991) posited that the historical factor gives us that "feeling of historical continuity lived by the totality of the collective". The linguistic factor, on the other hand, is a significant component, and is viewed as the "characteristic par exellence", affirms Diop, of cultural identity. And lastly, the psychological factor has played an important role in giving specifics sociocultural traits to different people throughtout history, although inadequately because the assesment on which it was based has been the product of taking into account, first and foremost, the literary output of those people and judging them accordingly; consequently, a better approach to the "psychic" factor, Diop proposed, should be initiated in a scientific fashion, including, among others, the unchanging relationships- from a cultural and psychological standpoint- that are still present in different societies even after radical sociopolitical upheavals that have ocurred within them (e.g., the aesthetic feelings which characterizes some cultures).
Therefore, Diop presented a framework for a systematic study on intercultural relations which considers not only the specificity of the linguistic expressions - with its limitations, notwithstanding-, but, also, this analysis should examine the levels "where the fundamental elements of the culture are elaborated", as well as those that "correspond to the universal [sic] concepts", that is, the values, norms, folkways, mores, and traits that are found in all cultures; and, in addition, the permanent or unchanging relationships still present within the society, which should be given special attention.
Although Diop was referring to the study of African societies for the most part, this framework, I consider, is necessary to properly evaluate other societies, and can be applied to the analysis of other cultures. A case in point, for instance, is the Cuban experience.
When Castro took the power in the island, Cuba was, for the most part, a prosperous nation, even though that it suffered from some maladies observed in many Latinamerican countries at that time, and even to some extent today, such as autocratic regimes, a culture of "caudillismo", unstable democracy, and so forth. However, economically, Cuba was considered the bridge of the Americas. The radical sociopolitical change brought by the Cuban Revolution, profoundily affected the cultural identity of the society. Most studies on the dynamics of the Cuban revolutionary process ignore the lower and intermediate strata while focus their attention to the leadership, and on how that leadership has been successful or not in managing the economy and opposing the "evil of imperialism". Fitzgerald (1994) made the point that further studies should include those actors, and, I should add that those actors are the ones that could permit us to examine accordingly the Cuban cultural identity.
First let me point out that Cuba before Castro was an example of a different kind of "capitalism" which, contrary to what some classical sociologists have conceptualized, has never been an unitary system (Eyal, Szelenyi & Townsley [2001]).
It is important to notice, also, that Cuba is an example on how "socialism" cannot be viewed - and sociologically studied, for that matter- as a single entity. I concur with Eyal, Szelenyi &Townsley that sociology should engage in an agenda of "comparative capitalisms", and, I must add, that it should engage in the study of "comparative socialisms", because there are many differences between the Cuban experience and the one lived by the European countries (we cannot forget other societies like the Korean and Chinese which have had a very different approach).
The Cuban Revolution has been a traumatic occurrence for that society, however, embedded within the Cuban cultural identity there are psychological traits that still remain unchanchanged, and, among them, we have the industriousness of the people.
Johnson (1997) stated that the growth of the Cuban community that emigrated to the United States has been impressive, even though the intentions by the Cuban regime to poison that community; Cuban-Americans have become " the richest and most influential political lobby after the Jewish Lobby, and its 2 million members generated a Gross Domestic Product eleven times larger than that of Cuba itself". And Miami, the capital of the Cuban Exile, as many Cubans find pleasure in referring to the city, became the "financial, economic, communications, and cultural center" that link the United States with the rest of Latin America. As Johnson concludes that the United States is indeed the grand beneficiary of the Cuban Exile, induced by the Cuban Revolution.
Now, the "socialistic" reforms brought by Castro and his associates did not teach industriousness to the Cuban people ( neither they taught the Cubans to play baseball, and dance, for instance), that was imbedded in the "psychic" of the people, and, when given the right conditions, it found a way to be developed once again and flourished, because everything that Miami represents today for the United States, Havana used to be before Castro took over.
We might conclude, then, that Diop's framework to assess appropriately the cultural identity of a group of people must include in that evaluation the permanent or unchanging relationships present in the society, and that their intransience is notorious even after radical sociopolitical upheavals have occured within them.
In addition, although this brief qualitative analysis intended to cover the outline given by Diop, is interesting to annotate that is necessary to address historical issues properly in order to enhance the quality of research that is done in sociology (Kiser & Hechter [1998]), and by which we are pretty much indebted to the works on that subject done by Max Weber. On this regard, we should ackowledge that a better understanding of these issues will allow us to put in proper perspective the shape of societies emerging from different kinds of "dysfunctional" capitalism- as I would rather refer to those societies that have a market economy but where the society itself is repressed of expressing themselves openly and with institutions heavely corrupted-, as well as societies emerging from "socialism".
What do you think?
References
Diop, C. A. (1991). Cultural identity. Civilization and barbarism; An authentic Anthropology (1st ed.). New York: Lawrence Hill Books (pp. 209-227).
Eyal, Szelenyi & Townsley (2001). The utopia of postsocialist theory and the ironic view of history in neoclassical sociology.The American Journal of Sociology 106(4); pp. 1121-1131.
Johnson, P. (1997). A history of the American people. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Fitzgerald, F. T. (1994). The Cuban Revolution in crisis: From managing Socialism to managing survival. (1st. ed.). New York: Monthly Review Press.
Kiser & Hechter (1998). The debate on historical Sociology: Rational choice theory and its critics. The American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), pp. 785-814.
posted by O. Azkue at 9:16 AM
0 comments
