The dominant cultural identity

[bigfield]

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?

My guess is that's such a thing comes naturally to second generation immigrants because they are immersed in both cultures from a young age. But I was under the impression that you were focusing on first generation immigrants. I would not expect first generation immigrants to be able to do that.

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.

The most obvious thing, to me, is language, and learning a language is not easy, especially if the language is unlike one's native language.

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.

LOL, I've only seen those café scenes in movies and TV shows, but then again I don't go out much.

If someone has lived in Copenhagen for 30+ years, but can't speak Danish, then that tells us that they didn't need to speak Danish in order to get by in Copenhagen. From their point of view, those 30+ years, with the melancholic ethnic café, might seem like a success, albeit a relatively modest one. I'm just not convinced that it's as bad for them as you are making out.

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.

I don't think political movements are analogous to cultures.

 

[J842P]

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.

..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There's another factor at work, also: How much you have to assimilate in order to function. A simple observation:

Amongst the immigrants I know who married people who spoke their language the English ability is very poor--communication is difficult or impossible. Amongst the immigrants I know who married people who didn't speak their language English ability is always at least passable. The need to communicate with one's partner is a very powerful force. (And, no, this isn't just selection bias. It is possible to fall in love with someone you struggle to communicate with. Our first years we carried a dictionary everywhere.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

My guess is that's such a thing comes naturally to second generation immigrants because they are immersed in both cultures from a young age. But I was under the impression that you were focusing on first generation immigrants. I would not expect first generation immigrants to be able to do that.

I'm focusing on anybody who belongs to any culture.

I think they're able to do it. If they're open to adapt.

The most obvious thing, to me, is language, and learning a language is not easy, especially if the language is unlike one's native language.

It's just a question of practice and motivation. If you are physically in the country where you are trying to learn the language there's no excuse. Just going to buy milk is a free language lesson, if you want.

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.

LOL, I've only seen those café scenes in movies and TV shows, but then again I don't go out much.

If someone has lived in Copenhagen for 30+ years, but can't speak Danish, then that tells us that they didn't need to speak Danish in order to get by in Copenhagen. From their point of view, those 30+ years, with the melancholic ethnic café, might seem like a success, albeit a relatively modest one. I'm just not convinced that it's as bad for them as you are making out.

Exactly. They don't need to learn Danish. But that's not the point. The point is giving yourself maximum opportunity to have a flourishing life in your country, new or otherwise. People don't need to do anything.

 

[bigfield]

Exactly. They don't need to learn Danish. But that's not the point. The point is giving yourself maximum opportunity to have a flourishing life in your country, new or otherwise. People don't need to do anything.

When I was learning about natural selection, one of the key ideas I needed to get my head around was the idea that it doesn't produce the best possible evolutions, it just produces evolutions that are good enough to survive. I think the same kind of idea can be applied here: we should expect that people will often choose strategies that work well enough, the "minimum effective dosage" of assimilation, rather than choosing maximum effort for maximum opportunity.

 

[fromderinside]

Ground work: Top down meaning of "The dominant cultural identity"

 Culture

is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in humansocieties, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.^[1]Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies.
A cultural norm codifies acceptable conduct in society; it serves as a guideline for behavior, dress, language, and demeanor in a situation, which serves as a template for expectations in a social group.

 cultural identity

Cultural identity is the identity of belonging to a group. It is part of a person's self-conception and self-perception and is related to nationality, ethnicity, religion, social class, generation, locality or any kind of social group that has its own distinct culture. In this way, cultural identity is both characteristic of the individual but also of the culturally identical group of members sharing the same cultural identity or upbringing.^[1]
Cultural (and ethnic) identity is a subset of the communication theory of identity that establishes four "frames of identity" that allow us to view how we build identity. These frames include the personal frame, enactment of communication frame, relationship frame, and communal frame.

 Dominant culture

A dominant culture is a cultural practice that is dominant within a particular political, social or economic entity, in which multiple cultures are present. It may refer to a language, religion/ritual, social value and/or social custom. These features are often a norm for an entire society. It achieves dominance by being perceived as pertaining to a majority of the population and having a significant presence in institutions relating to communication, education, artistic expression, law, government and business. The concept of "dominant culture" is generally used in academic discourse in fields such as sociology, anthropology and cultural studies.^[1]

 Cultural pluralism

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, whereby their values and practices are accepted by the dominant culture, provided such are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. As a sociological term, the definition and description of cultural pluralism has evolved over time. It has been described as not only a fact but a societal goal.^[1]

 Minority culture

A minority group, by its original definition, refers to a group of people whose practices, race, religion, ethnicity, or other characteristics are fewer in numbers than the main groups of those classifications. However, in present-day sociology, a minority group refers to a category of people who experience relative disadvantage as compared to members of a dominant social group.^[1] Minority group membership is typically based on differences in observable characteristics or practices, such as: ethnicity (ethnic minority), race (racial minority), religion (religious minority), sexual orientation (sexual minority), or disability.^[2] Utilizing the framework of intersectionality, it is important to recognize that an individual may simultaneously hold membership in multiple minority groups (e.g. both a racial and religious minority).^{[3][failed verification]} Likewise, individuals may also be part of a minority group in regard to some characteristics, but part of a dominant group in regard to others.^[3]

 Cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation^[1][2] is the adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures, though not the opposite^[3][1].^[4]
According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism. When cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context ─ sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture – the practice is often received negatively.

them bones them bones them dry bones

 

[DrZoidberg]

Exactly. They don't need to learn Danish. But that's not the point. The point is giving yourself maximum opportunity to have a flourishing life in your country, new or otherwise. People don't need to do anything.

When I was learning about natural selection, one of the key ideas I needed to get my head around was the idea that it doesn't produce the best possible evolutions, it just produces evolutions that are good enough to survive. I think the same kind of idea can be applied here: we should expect that people will often choose strategies that work well enough, the "minimum effective dosage" of assimilation, rather than choosing maximum effort for maximum opportunity.

Yeah. The reason a lot of people stay in bad relationships rather than breaking up and finding a new better partner. We're creatures of habit

 

[fromderinside]

I think we're more addicts in search of habit. Not in search of actually. More likely to be addicts with the habit. Face it Oxycodone scandal couldn't have happened in the US is we weren't in search of some escape, call it pain if you must.

But being an American I'm pretty sure we're still looking for mommy's weight loss pill she got to stay in range of being attractive to people so she could get rid of that anxiety for needing someone, anyone, for company. Nothin more lonely than an American chasing cash or cash barons making more so one can remain popular.

Always been impressed with the image of a guy in a shiny cheap suit flashing cash and his Porsche key while alone at the bar. We're quite the hypocritical tribe here in Cash and Carry 'merica.

Seems we've exported most of that right back to Europe from whence we brought it, enriched it, monetized it, then sold it to ourselves.

Trying to get more dump in the sentence, writes he.

 

[JohnG]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

In other words a lot of people aren't real bright. Is that too harsh?

 

[Politesse]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

Like Rush before him. But what does it say about us that there is always someone "like that" to tell people it's okay to think what they already feel?

 

[JohnG]

Like Rush before him. But what does it say about us that there is always someone "like that" to tell people it's okay to think what they already feel?

That it’s deep rooted, systemic

 

[fromderinside]

Critical Race Theory it is not. It's National Heritage Theory, an analysis of history in terms of Founder Nation heritage and principles. It specifically applies to the American origins and the effects of subsequent integration and assimilation of multiple cultures through original National framework principles. It is neither about race nor is it about critical anything.

The real problems in such method are in handling sensitivities of both the dominate and transcending populations outside original national heritages. That's the political dynamic. It is a discussion of changing perspectives which be broached with much attention to how are originating principles are stressed and updated to accommodate current constituencies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

But why would it be in an individuals best interest to be cultural flavour for the good of diversity? For the individual isn't it always dysfunktional? Please argue for how it can be in the individuals best interest to not join the dominant culture. What's in it for them?

I understand that diversity is good. But imho you haven't managed to argue for why anyone would benefit from not belonging to the dominant culture

 

[JohnG]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

But why would it be in an individuals best interest to be cultural flavour for the good of diversity? For the individual isn't it always dysfunktional? Please argue for how it can be in the individuals best interest to not join the dominant culture. What's in it for them?

I understand that diversity is good. But imho you haven't managed to argue for why anyone would benefit from not belonging to the dominant culture

I see your point, but I would say a lot depends on the society in which one is considering being a part of the dominant culture.

If a society favors one specific culture, by allowing privileges to one group at the expense of its other citizens, I would say that is a flawed society, and the advantages of joining that society are likely to be superficial and short lived. In many cases you just can't join based on race. I guess one could change religion but it's not a simple thing to change ones worldview, anyway...

In the USA for example, one can join the dominant culture, but you may never have health care because of disgust at the idea of having your taxes help a person from an out-group. In that case, if enough people leave the dominant culture, Americans may one day be able to afford insulin.

I know you are specifically looking at whether the individual gains any benefit as opposed to a group, but I don't think we can really separate the one from the many here. A true social benefit will benefit the individual either directly or indirectly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would seem to me that a country that is devoid of cultural diversity, or aspires to be, is primed to go down some dark roads, as history would indicate.

It would be a bland society as well

Cultural uniformity is what’s at the heart of Trumpism. Some argue that Tucker Carlson is the driving force in RW politics in the US right now, with replacement theory. The imaginary war on CRT is creating a lot of stress with the mono-culture demographic in the US, as they feel that their “dominant” culture is under attack

But why would it be in an individuals best interest to be cultural flavour for the good of diversity? For the individual isn't it always dysfunktional? Please argue for how it can be in the individuals best interest to not join the dominant culture. What's in it for them?

I understand that diversity is good. But imho you haven't managed to argue for why anyone would benefit from not belonging to the dominant culture

I see your point, but I would say a lot depends on the society in which one is considering being a part of the dominant culture.

If a society favors one specific culture, by allowing privileges to one group at the expense of its other citizens, I would say that is a flawed society, and the advantages of joining that society are likely to be superficial and short lived. In many cases you just can't join based on race. I guess one could change religion but it's not a simple thing to change ones worldview, anyway...

In the USA for example, one can join the dominant culture, but you may never have health care because of disgust at the idea of having your taxes help a person from an out-group. In that case, if enough people leave the dominant culture, Americans may one day be able to afford insulin.

I know you are specifically looking at whether the individual gains any benefit as opposed to a group, but I don't think we can really separate the one from the many here. A true social benefit will benefit the individual either directly or indirectly.

This is another discussion. Richard Florida has already managed to show how cultural tolerance and economic prosperity are linked. The more tolerant the more affluent. I also think that the more open a culture the more dominant it gets. It's just maths. If a culture is insular it will have fewer social contact points, so therefore less opportunity to spread. The most open culture will become the most dominant. Open cultures will also get their dysfunctional aspects grated down over time. Since there's more contact with the outside it will be pushed towards simplicity and ease.

If we use languages as an analogue. The smaller the language the more complicated the grammar. The biggest languages are easiest to learn. Why? Because the more people learn it as a second language they will often fail on the hard bits, which will wear down the hard bits until they are gone. And all that remains is the efficient core of that original language. I think cultures are the same.

Since the bigger culture is the most open and flexible, why isn't it always best to join it? If openness and cultural diversity is linked to prosperity and tolerance, why do so many cling to a minority culture that is rigid an insular?

 

[Swammerdami]

But why would it be in an individuals best interest to be cultural flavour for the good of diversity? For the individual isn't it always dysfunktional? Please argue for how it can be in the individuals best interest to not join the dominant culture. What's in it for them?

I understand that diversity is good. But imho you haven't managed to argue for why anyone would benefit from not belonging to the dominant culture

I answered this a month ago or so. Let me try again.

My wife and I lived in the U.S. for a while. My wife practices Buddhism, with teachings I have grown to respect far more than Christian teachings. Her Buddhism is an important part of her. In your view, had we continued to live in the U.S., should she have renounced her religious beliefs?

The shape of her face is slightly different from the Caucasian face. Should she have gotten a "nose job"? Or should we have never married?

I live in Thailand now and everyone knows I'm a Farang even before I open my mouth. Should I get a reverse nose job? I try to fit in occasionally at temple ceremonies, but am too clumsy and unaccustomed to get far. (Actually Farangs in Thailand benefit from a reverse-racism! Many Thais regard Farangs as superior. In your view should Thais try to act like Farangs?)

 

[DrZoidberg]

But why would it be in an individuals best interest to be cultural flavour for the good of diversity? For the individual isn't it always dysfunktional? Please argue for how it can be in the individuals best interest to not join the dominant culture. What's in it for them?

I understand that diversity is good. But imho you haven't managed to argue for why anyone would benefit from not belonging to the dominant culture

I answered this a month ago or so. Let me try again.

My wife and I lived in the U.S. for a while. My wife practices Buddhism, with teachings I have grown to respect far more than Christian teachings. Her Buddhism is an important part of her. In your view, had we continued to live in the U.S., should she have renounced her religious beliefs?

The shape of her face is slightly different from the Caucasian face. Should she have gotten a "nose job"? Or should we have never married?

I live in Thailand now and everyone knows I'm a Farang even before I open my mouth. Should I get a reverse nose job? I try to fit in occasionally at temple ceremonies, but am too clumsy and unaccustomed to get far. (Actually Farangs in Thailand benefit from a reverse-racism! Many Thais regard Farangs as superior. In your view should Thais try to act like Farangs?)

My rule is, "whatever works". Whatever behavior that helps you reach your goals is what you should be doing. Do you really think a nose job is a worthwhile vehicle to help you in your journeys in Thailand? I highly doubt it.

I know a couple of farangs who speak fluent Thai. They have shown me that it's highly beneficial for their lifestyle in Thailand.

It's a question of investment of time and payoff. A nose job is expensive, and I suspect, with a limited return. You'd just come across as a superficial moron who don't understand how culture works. You'd look like a freak. Michael Jackson springs to mind. I'm not so sure it worked out so well for him.

As far as Buddhism. Buddhism is very well adapted to the modern western life and culture. Much more so than Christianity IMHO. While Christianity is now in the process of an upgrade. I absolutely see the impulse to just skip Christianity altogether and go for the more modern Buddhism (ie better adapted to modern life). I know quite a few practicing Buddhists who are also atheists. I used to attend weekly Zen meditations at a center secularists and atheists.

It's hard to speak of religion sweepingly. Since it's many things. But one perspective is functional. You already have a culture and your chosen religion should help you succeed within that culture.

Tina Turner is famously Buddhist. Would you consider her not part of American majority culture?

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you really think a nose job is a worthwhile vehicle to help you in your journeys in Thailand? I highly doubt it.

I know a couple of farangs who speak fluent Thai. They have shown me that it's highly beneficial for their lifestyle in Thailand.

You couldn't tell that my comment about nose jobs was sarcastic? An effort to demonstrate the limits of your simple model?

BTW I have followed your advice to some degree: my Thai is rather fluent; and I can read Thai, though slowly. (I did meet one red-necky American who's been here for many years and brags that he's never learned more than a few words of the language.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you really think a nose job is a worthwhile vehicle to help you in your journeys in Thailand? I highly doubt it.

I know a couple of farangs who speak fluent Thai. They have shown me that it's highly beneficial for their lifestyle in Thailand.

You couldn't tell that my comment about nose jobs was sarcastic? An effort to demonstrate the limits of your simple model?

BTW I have followed your advice to some degree: my Thai is rather fluent; and I can read Thai, though slowly. (I did meet one red-necky American who's been here for many years and brags that he's never learned more than a few words of the language.)

I don't understand the point of your sarcasm. Sarcasm is usually directed against something. What was it directed against?