The dominant cultural identity

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a thought experiment I've been mulling about in my head.

Why do minority cultures exist at all? All dominant cultures must have started out small at some point, rubbed up against another culture and over time subsumed them. Not because they are assholes. But because members of both cultures are smart and want to get along.

Why would anybody want to cling to a minority culture when you live in another dominant culture?

I work with well educated people. Minimum masters degrees. A lot of phd's. Everybody thoroughly middle class. I am also an immigrant. I work with quite a few immigrants.

People who are well educated and middle-class tend to put a lot of effort to adapt to the culture they get to. That's pretty much what education is. Tools to allow us to adapt to novel situations so we function in groups and can excel.

The working class and the poor, seem to struggle with this. When they emigrate they seem to thrust their heels down and resist assimilation as much as possible.

My Middle-class Hungarian Jewish ex wife came from Budapest where everything was about playing down their Jewishness and playing up their Hungarianess. She moved to Israel and played up her Jewishness. She moved to Sweden and again played down her Jewishness.

This brings me to the point of belonging to the dominant ethnic and cultural group. Why would you want to belong to a minority? If you can help it, why do you cling to an identity that isn't doing anything for you?

I work with so many Arab and Muslim immigrants who make a point of eating extra helpings of pork at Christmas parties and happily drink beer. These are well educated middle-class Arabs. I too make a point of eating foods which Danes love which Swedes don't eat, because we think it's gross.

My way of joking now is Danish. Not Swedish. Yes, there's huge differences. Perhaps our greatest cultural difference.

Whenever I travel I always spend months ahead studying the culture, learning as much as I can of the language. In order for me to, as effortlessly as possible, function in that country.

To me culture has nothing to do with pride. It's simply about making social interaction, where ever you find yourself, simple and easy. Isn't that what everybody wants?

If that is so, why do minority cultures even exist?

 

[rousseau]

You might be interested in reading The Politics of Cultural Pluralism by Crawford Young. He won an award for it from the American Political Science Association in 1979. It talks about exactly this topic.

 

[untermensche]

If children are indoctrinated at a young age that indoctrination is very deep and long lasting.

 

[Politesse]

Let's start at the beginning... literally. Cultural formation is a process that begins when you are in the womb (think food tolerances), and progresses over your lifetime. As an adult, you can make certain choices about your development as a social person, but your primary cultural formation is something that is well-ingrained by the time you are toddling around on two legs. At that point, the people who are raising you are your dominant influences, and whether or not you like it, the culture you are raised in will always be a part of you. It's also your point of connection to your family and friends; spitting in their faces to achieve wealth and prestige in a dominating culture is not as easy to do emotionally as you might be thinking, and its also a considerable risk from a rational perspective, as there is no guarantee that severing your connection to your existing social support network will guarantee acceptance in the new one you're trying to gain access to. Indeed, in almost all of the examples you cite, Judaism and Islam in Europe, lower classes in Europe, there are entire political parties dedicated to resisting their assimilation into the upper classes and severely punishing those who fail to "pass". You had it easy, because jokes aside there isn't an overwhelming structural social animus between Danes and Swedes at this point in time. While you might want to become a Dane and even feel some degree of social pressure to do so, there aren't serious material consequences if you fail at your attempt in the day to day. Indeed, your presentation of Danishness probably isn't as convincing as you think; it's just that no one really minds. The situation is very different for a member of a persecuted minority social class. You might be mocked but you won't be arrested. Swedes in Denmark may be a numerical minority, but they aren't systematically denied employment, housing, schooling, business, freedom of religious practice, and so forth. You therefore have much less motivation to rely on an ethnized community fellow of Swedes for basic survival as would, say, a Mexican or Lebanese immigrant living in Detroit or a Malian refugee in Bordeaux. Not everyone has the luxury of "simple and easy" cultural exploration and reinvention.

In any case, even at the level of base desire, not everyone, faced with a violent oppressive force bent on destroying everything they hold dear, immediately thinks "I must find a way to join these people!" So we should take variations of personality into account as well.

 

[rousseau]

Let's start at the beginning... literally. Cultural formation is a process that begins when you are in the womb (think food tolerances), and progresses over your lifetime. As an adult, you can make certain choices about your development as a social person, but your primary cultural formation is something that is well-ingrained by the time you are toddling around on two legs. At that point, the people who are raising you are your dominant influences, and whether or not you like it, the culture you are raised in will always be a part of you. It's also your point of connection to your family and friends; spitting in their faces to achieve wealth and prestige in a dominating culture is not as easy to do emotionally as you might be thinking, and its also a considerable risk from a rational perspective, as there is no guarantee that severing your connection to your existing social support network will guarantee acceptance in the new one you're trying to gain access to. Indeed, in almost all of the examples you cite, Judaism and Islam in Europe, lower classes in Europe, there are entire political parties dedicated to resisting their assimilation into the upper classes and severely punishing those who fail to "pass". You had it easy, because jokes aside there isn't an overwhelming structural social animus between Danes and Swedes at this point in time. While you might want to become a Dane and even feel some degree of social pressure to do so, there aren't serious material consequences if you fail at your attempt in the day to day. Indeed, your presentation of Danishness probably isn't as convincing as you think; it's just that no one really minds. The situation is very different for a member of a persecuted minority social class. You might be mocked but you won't be arrested. Swedes in Denmark may be a numerical minority, but they aren't systematically denied employment, housing, schooling, business, freedom of religious practice, and so forth. You therefore have much less motivation to rely on an ethnized community fellow of Swedes for basic survival as would, say, a Mexican or Lebanese immigrant living in Detroit or a Malian refugee in Bordeaux. Not everyone has the luxury of "simple and easy" cultural exploration and reinvention.

In any case, even at the level of base desire, not everyone, faced with a violent oppressive force bent on destroying everything they hold dear, immediately thinks "I must find a way to join these people!" So we should take variations of personality into account as well.

This is a good post.

In my view, to simplify it a bit you're basically looking at what is in my interest as an individual. Cultural identity is somewhat fluid, and people will adapt to new cultures if and to the extent that it's in their interest to do so. But as Politesse mentions the variables are complex and dynamic.

Crawford Young's study focuses on Africa with it's highly complex (culturally plural) communities, which make for some interesting case studies.

 

[J842P]

Let's start at the beginning... literally. Cultural formation is a process that begins when you are in the womb (think food tolerances), and progresses over your lifetime. As an adult, you can make certain choices about your development as a social person, but your primary cultural formation is something that is well-ingrained by the time you are toddling around on two legs. At that point, the people who are raising you are your dominant influences, and whether or not you like it, the culture you are raised in will always be a part of you. It's also your point of connection to your family and friends; spitting in their faces to achieve wealth and prestige in a dominating culture is not as easy to do emotionally as you might be thinking, and its also a considerable risk from a rational perspective, as there is no guarantee that severing your connection to your existing social support network will guarantee acceptance in the new one you're trying to gain access to. Indeed, in almost all of the examples you cite, Judaism and Islam in Europe, lower classes in Europe, there are entire political parties dedicated to resisting their assimilation into the upper classes and severely punishing those who fail to "pass". You had it easy, because jokes aside there isn't an overwhelming structural social animus between Danes and Swedes at this point in time. While you might want to become a Dane and even feel some degree of social pressure to do so, there aren't serious material consequences if you fail at your attempt in the day to day. Indeed, your presentation of Danishness probably isn't as convincing as you think; it's just that no one really minds. The situation is very different for a member of a persecuted minority social class. You might be mocked but you won't be arrested. Swedes in Denmark may be a numerical minority, but they aren't systematically denied employment, housing, schooling, business, freedom of religious practice, and so forth. You therefore have much less motivation to rely on an ethnized community fellow of Swedes for basic survival as would, say, a Mexican or Lebanese immigrant living in Detroit or a Malian refugee in Bordeaux. Not everyone has the luxury of "simple and easy" cultural exploration and reinvention.

In any case, even at the level of base desire, not everyone, faced with a violent oppressive force bent on destroying everything they hold dear, immediately thinks "I must find a way to join these people!" So we should take variations of personality into account as well.

Yes, at least looking at the poor immigrants from Central America that I know, it was basically a matter of the path of least resistance. Most came barely knowing how to read Spanish, let alone speak and read English. They work hard, and live close to other Central Americans.

I will say, I think you are speaking nonsense saying that a Mexican would be systematically denied employment, housing, schooling, business, and freedom of religious practice.

I suppose I've never been to Detroit, that might be a special case. But the United States of America is one of the easiest countries to assimilate to, and is incredibly welcoming of foreigners. Certainly, much more welcoming to a Guatemalan or Mexican than Europe, South America, East Asia. Pretty much anywhere else I can think of.

 

[untermensche]

The US is a mix.

But there are a lot of very unwelcoming people.

We don't teach Spanish to all children in the schools because of ignorant unwelcoming people.

Even though it would open up those children to a lot of things.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You might be interested in reading The Politics of Cultural Pluralism by Crawford Young. He won an award for it from the American Political Science Association in 1979. It talks about exactly this topic.

Do you care to summarize?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let's start at the beginning... literally. Cultural formation is a process that begins when you are in the womb (think food tolerances), and progresses over your lifetime. As an adult, you can make certain choices about your development as a social person, but your primary cultural formation is something that is well-ingrained by the time you are toddling around on two legs. At that point, the people who are raising you are your dominant influences, and whether or not you like it, the culture you are raised in will always be a part of you. It's also your point of connection to your family and friends; spitting in their faces to achieve wealth and prestige in a dominating culture is not as easy to do emotionally as you might be thinking, and its also a considerable risk from a rational perspective, as there is no guarantee that severing your connection to your existing social support network will guarantee acceptance in the new one you're trying to gain access to. Indeed, in almost all of the examples you cite, Judaism and Islam in Europe, lower classes in Europe, there are entire political parties dedicated to resisting their assimilation into the upper classes and severely punishing those who fail to "pass".

Sure. But a culture that punishes you from assimilating into another culture is worthless. You're better off dumping it, no matter what. It's like a jealous husband at a swinger party. While it might give you some support and stability in life, it prevents you from having a life. Or to put it more plainly, something I've learned from a life of open relationships. If you're generous with letting your wife fuck other guys, what you get back from that is many times over, including rock solid loyalty and love. Trying to control your loved ones can only backfire. In one way or another.

I have and have had friends and colleagues who have come from very strict and conservative backgrounds. It's my friends and colleagues, so it's a self selected group. But they've all turned their backs on their home culture. Since it only got in the way for them in life. Some were ostracized. Some were ostracized and then later regained contact. Some maintained relations with their home culture. But these are well educated highly intelligent middle class men and women working in a field with a perpetual labour shortage. I understand they had options poor people might not have.

You had it easy, because jokes aside there isn't an overwhelming structural social animus between Danes and Swedes at this point in time. While you might want to become a Dane and even feel some degree of social pressure to do so, there aren't serious material consequences if you fail at your attempt in the day to day. Indeed, your presentation of Danishness probably isn't as convincing as you think; it's just that no one really minds.

Of course I feel a social pressure to do so. I'm an immigrant. Any immigrant who doesn't feel that pressure should get the fuck out of the country IMHO. The pressure comes from feeling like you're a stone in a shoe. It's constant daily little complications about you not understanding what's going on or you not doing what you should to make social interaction smooth. Every immigrant I've ever worked with has worked hard on learning all of this. They've studied it like you read for an exam. I did. There's books on this. Loads and loads of books on it.

The situation is very different for a member of a persecuted minority social class. You might be mocked but you won't be arrested.

If you belong to persecuted minority, if you are able, leave that minority. It's really simple.

It doesn't work each time. My Hungarian Jewish ex wife, before WW2 their family did everything they could to hide their Jewishness. They were upper middle class. They did keep their Jewish name. But they couldn't have been more assimilated. They were even fake Christians. They still got gobbled up by the Auschwitz machine. So it's not a fail safe method.

But as an individual, if your minority is persecuted why cling to it? Why not leave ASAP? Back when homosexuality was illegal they were closeted. That's the smart way to be a minority in a world where it's dangerous to be so.

Swedes in Denmark may be a numerical minority, but they aren't systematically denied employment, housing, schooling, business, freedom of religious practice, and so forth. You therefore have much less motivation to rely on an ethnized community fellow of Swedes for basic survival as would, say, a Mexican or Lebanese immigrant living in Detroit or a Malian refugee in Bordeaux. Not everyone has the luxury of "simple and easy" cultural exploration and reinvention.

Danes prefer hiring Swedes over other Danes. And they prefer tenants that are Swedish over Danes. Swedes are more conscientious, honest, submit on the deadline and pay their rent on time. Swedish culture makes Swedes a bunch of miserable hard-working fucks incapable of enjoying life. Danes are more relaxed about life. For good and for ill.

In any case, even at the level of base desire, not everyone, faced with a violent oppressive force bent on destroying everything they hold dear, immediately thinks "I must find a way to join these people!" So we should take variations of personality into account as well.

It doesn't matter your personality. It's always beneficial. No matter what you want to get done in life. Your personality can make it harder or easier. But it's an instant pay off.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Crawford Young's study focuses on Africa with it's highly complex (culturally plural) communities, which make for some interesting case studies.

If you live in a country where tribal affiliation is the single most important key to social advancement then obviously you're going to wear your tribal belonging like peacock feathers. It's your only ticket anywhere no matter how slim.

But countries with advanced economies, low corruption and a working legal system have no use for this. So I'm not sure how it compares?

Tribal cultures tend to have adult adoption. So if you're hellbent on advancing in spite of your unfortunate background there are ways.

 

[rousseau]

You might be interested in reading The Politics of Cultural Pluralism by Crawford Young. He won an award for it from the American Political Science Association in 1979. It talks about exactly this topic.

Do you care to summarize?

It's been a while since I went through it. I flipped through it last night, and a lot of it is actually how cultural pluralism plays out in intra-state politics, but IIRC there were a few chapters on cultural diversity and it's dynamism.

Difficult to summarize, my post above is about as close as I could get.

 

[Swammerdami]

I find OP's perspective too limited. For starters, look at "All dominant cultures must have started out small at some point, rubbed up against another culture and over time subsumed them. Not because they are assholes. But because members of both cultures are smart and want to get along." This is a glib dismissal of countless genocides.

Some people are very religious and don't want to give up their religion just to blend in. Others have vivid and poignant memories of their upbringing far away, and cling to them. For some people their cultural values are more important than material advancement.

And, American blacks are to a large extent inextricably linked to a certain "culture" unless they can alter their skin color.

Even the notion of "dominant culture" is ambiguous. Laotian language and Laotian cuisine are dominant in many provinces of Thailand. Should these people retain their locally dominant culture? Or adopt Bangkok's culture?

One point I might agree with OP on. In the U.S. intolerant white rednecks are now a minority. Overall in the U.S. a more tolerant multicultural attitude is more dominant. I'd like to see the rednecks give up their minority "culture."

 

[DrZoidberg]

I find OP's perspective too limited. For starters, look at "All dominant cultures must have started out small at some point, rubbed up against another culture and over time subsumed them. Not because they are assholes. But because members of both cultures are smart and want to get along." This is a glib dismissal of countless genocides.

In ancient politics, if you resist your conqueror = genocide or slavery. If you surrender peacefully = subject people who pay tribute.

Genocide was a kind of collective punishment to scare other city states into submitting peacefully.

They did it because it works. The amount of genocide is in relation to how quickly your imperial troops can move. The slower the movement the greater the incentive to rebel. That's why genocides under Roman rule dropped sharply. The Roman roads made it less profitable to rebel.

Mostly the ancients didn't murder each other in mass genocides. Mostly. Conquerors were trying to avoid it if they could. They only did it because nobody had figured out a better system to rule an empire yet.

Usually, in the ancient world, various cultures got along just fine. Racism wasn't really a thing. It was more important what your family was than what ethnic group or what religion you had. So cultures did rub off on each other. Ancient Rome was incredibly cosmopolitan and open. They picked up all kinds of behaviors and practices from the cultures they ruled.

The nature and type of genocides after the rise of nationalism 1890 ca is a different thing all together. You can't compare them. These genocides make no sense either because the nation and their ethnic makeup is almost a complete fantasy.

Nationalistic genocides are much more cruel and pointless. But one nation can contain a number of cultures who, as long as they maintain certain superficial symbols can coexist just fine within the same nation. So even in the age of nationalistic genocides cultures still rub up against each other.

Some people are very religious and don't want to give up their religion just to blend in.

I think that just comes down to intelligence. Smart people will give up their religion. Stupid people won't.

Others have vivid and poignant memories of their upbringing far away, and cling to them. For some people their cultural values are more important than material advancement.

It's not just material advancement. It's everything. It opens up any and all possibilities. There's no reason not to embrace the dominant culture. I'm talking from the perspective of the individual immigrant now.

And, American blacks are to a large extent inextricably linked to a certain "culture" unless they can alter their skin color.

Sure. Fair point. But that's not what I'm talking about. They're forced into a minority, regardless of their own actions. But even so, I'm sure there's ways to gain access to "white culture" as a black American. As long as they settle for being settle class citizens. While not optimal, from the perspective of the individual, it can still be worth it. It's still shit though. And nothing I'm defending. But from the individual's perspective we're always better off accepting the rules of the society we find ourselves in and adapt. If we're able. I'm well aware that in, especially, American culture that wasn't always possible, Jim Crow laws etc.

Even the notion of "dominant culture" is ambiguous. Laotian language and Laotian cuisine are dominant in many provinces of Thailand. Should these people retain their locally dominant culture? Or adopt Bangkok's culture?

The dominant culture is regional. It's whatever culture is in your benefit to adopt if you live there. I'm not making a value judgement. I'm just speaking from the perspective of an immigrant to another country.

Also, every region has a number of coexisting cultures. Class based cultures being one. Somebody middle class in Milan, Stockholm, London or even Bankok will have common with each other than they would with the average Italian farmer.

One point I might agree with OP on. In the U.S. intolerant white rednecks are now a minority. Overall in the U.S. a more tolerant multicultural attitude is more dominant. I'd like to see the rednecks give up their minority "culture."

But that's how cultures become minorities. If a behavior stops being useful it stops. At least among rational agents. Over time only the stupid members of that minority should cling to that identity. If people are smart and rational agents any minority should become smaller and smaller until it's gone. Certainly if members of that minority are acting out of individual self interest.

 

[Politesse]

Annd, within three posts, we have a strraight-up defense of genocide. I'm not going to bother getting drawn into this one any further, I think everyone can see what's happening here.

 

[rousseau]

But that's how cultures become minorities. If a behavior stops being useful it stops. At least among rational agents. Over time only the stupid members of that minority should cling to that identity. If people are smart and rational agents any minority should become smaller and smaller until it's gone. Certainly if members of that minority are acting out of individual self interest.

Being smart and a rational agent doesn't always mean joining the dominant culture, is what you're not getting. Yes, in general acculturation flows toward dominant cultures (for instance, how many Africans do you see moving to North America versus the other way around).

But you're over-simplifying the equation, it's not just a matter of people continually being absorbed by a culture with greater benefits. The process of cultural change is multi-faceted and highly complex.

 

[Emily Lake]

Annd, within three posts, we have a strraight-up defense of genocide. I'm not going to bother getting drawn into this one any further, I think everyone can see what's happening here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But that's how cultures become minorities. If a behavior stops being useful it stops. At least among rational agents. Over time only the stupid members of that minority should cling to that identity. If people are smart and rational agents any minority should become smaller and smaller until it's gone. Certainly if members of that minority are acting out of individual self interest.

Being smart and a rational agent doesn't always mean joining the dominant culture, is what you're not getting. Yes, in general acculturation flows toward dominant cultures (for instance, how many Africans do you see moving to North America versus the other way around).

But you're over-simplifying the equation, it's not just a matter of people continually being absorbed by a culture with greater benefits. The process of cultural change is multi-faceted and highly complex.

The way cultural change works over time is that every culture in proximity influences each other. Culture is just stuff that people do. We're social animals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Annd, within three posts, we have a strraight-up defense of genocide. I'm not going to bother getting drawn into this one any further, I think everyone can see what's happening here.

Explaining why ancient genocides happened is not defending them. Saying that Hitler was a bad person isn't the same thing as justifying his crimes.

 

[bigfield]

It's not just material advancement. It's everything. It opens up any and all possibilities. There's no reason not to embrace the dominant culture. I'm talking from the perspective of the individual immigrant now.

You seem convinced that any immigrant acting in their best interests would assimilate, but maybe this depends on the individual's situation.

Assimilation is much easier for some people than others. If you're highly educated then it's easier to assimilate, which might include learning a new language. If your ethnic minority is considerably different than the majority, then you might find it harder to assimilate than someone whose minority culture is relatively similar. For some, assimilation might just be more trouble than it's worth.

To look at it another way, not assimilating might be the better survival strategy for some individuals. They may have a social network of other expats, through whom they can find an adequate job and a sense of community. They might be able to get by just fine without having to learn a new language, or adapting to different social norms.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not just material advancement. It's everything. It opens up any and all possibilities. There's no reason not to embrace the dominant culture. I'm talking from the perspective of the individual immigrant now.

You seem convinced that any immigrant acting in their best interests would assimilate, but maybe this depends on the individual's situation.

Yes. I think that firmly. I think it's highly unlikely there's a situation where this isn't true.

Worth noting is that second generation immigrants tend to develop cross cultural identities. Where they identify with both. Ie, they can effortlessly switch modes back and forward. Why would everybody who could not do that? That's always what I'm gunning for even when I'm just a tourist.

Assimilation is much easier for some people than others. If you're highly educated then it's easier to assimilate, which might include learning a new language. If your ethnic minority is considerably different than the majority, then you might find it harder to assimilate than someone whose minority culture is relatively similar. For some, assimilation might just be more trouble than it's worth.

Yes, it's easier if you're educated. But here's the kicker, it's always worth it. The pay off is immediate. Any investment, no matter how small, pays off. The big, most obvious things are the easiest. Which gives the most pay off. It's the details that are difficult. Which is a huge investment for very small returns. My point is that it's always worth it, especially in the beginning.

I think it's a question of ability, intelligence and confidence. Some people are extremely fragile and moving outside their comfort zone, no matter how little risks shattering their entire self image. I think there's a lot of people like this. Especially among the working class.

I don't think it's more trouble than it's worth. I think these people are limiting themselves out of fear. Just irrational fear. It's like people going with an infected tooth for month because they're afraid of the dentist.

To look at it another way, not assimilating might be the better survival strategy for some individuals. They may have a social network of other expats, through whom they can find an adequate job and a sense of community. They might be able to get by just fine without having to learn a new language, or adapting to different social norms.

I think it's more about ones peer group. We've all seen members of an immigrant group hanging out in their cultural appreciation society café, badly dressed and all looking depressed. They're comforted by what they recognize even if it only gets in the way of their life. These people clinging to their own culture is more a kind of self harm behaviour IMHO. It does nothing but doom them to a life of poverty. I've met many immigrants in Stockholm and Copenhagen who have lived here 30+ years and still can't speak Danish or Swedish. Especially Somali immigrants. I somehow doubt that can in any way benefit them.

We can turn it around. People who belong to the majority culture and embrace it to the extreme, neo-nazis and nationlists. What drives these guys? Isn't it that they're such complete losers in life that they don't feel they have anything to be proud about that they have to cling to something external, their nation/race/ethnic group. I get the same vibe from many of these immigrant groups clinging to their home cultural identity and norms.

Thinking that your own norms is the best for you is arrogant to the extreme. No, it's not. We can change norms like underwear. I adopt whatever norms work best for me where I found myself. I've always done that. Regardless of me belonging to the dominant culture or me being an immigrant. I strongly believe it's healthy to question the norms you were born with. It's among the most important things in life in order to grow up and become an adult IMHO.