Cultures are powerful situations

The first two chapters of the textbook focus on how cultures are powerful situations, which shape the individuals, and therefore, culture cannot be viewed separately from a person. It is a contrast to the laboratory-generated situations, which are widely used in psychological studies and in which variables are strictly controlled. But one comes to conclusion that culture, unlike the simple scientific experiment, cannot be controlled, and it is difficult to “peel off” some layers of it and analyze how each and every aspect affects the person.

It is because of this complex structure of culture, the topic of culture and psychology invited many debates about what is “culture” and where does it lie in relationship to human’s psychology. I think that although scientific community succeeded to shift from natural science definition to cultural science definition, there is still much work to do because of the fact that most research in psychology was focused on WEIRD people – western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic people.

The point that drew my intention was a description of tight and loose cultures, and how these tendencies are interwoven with the lifestyle people sustain. According to Uskul and colleagues (2008), varying levels of interdependence depended on whether people historically were fishers and farmers, or herders. It came to me a surprise, that people with history of herders were supposed to be more independent and “loose”. Kazakhs were historically herders, until they were imposed a sedimentary lifestyle by their colonizer. And I would say that nowadays, Kazakhstan is characterized as a typical asian culture with tight social norms and punishment from the in-group, if these norms are violated.

It goes to show that human’s identity is formed from being exposed to multiple cultures, as it was mentioned in the paper. And multiple cultures can happen simultaneously, or as it in my case, this influence can accumulate through the years. As a result, this “imposed” culture later becomes what Kazakhs call “true kazakh mentality”, although it is a complete opposite to what ancestors have valued and appreciated. These 2 chapters argue that culture is not something fixed – it is rather dynamic and changing. And the question is – is it even sensible then to try to save “true authentic culture” and try to allienate from what was somehow imposed and forced on people?

Another point that intrigued me is an indigeneous psychologies movement, in which scientific study of human behavior is native, and designed for its people. It is a case where subject of research (representative of a certain culture) becomes a researcher. It is in line what scientists try to do in Feminist Narrative research. I like the fact that in both of these approaches honor the complexity of people’s lived experiences by giving them power for self-determination and reflexion.

Discovering links between theories and previous knowledge and reality, I live in, drives me curious to learn about culture even more. I hope that throughout the semester I will get answers to my questions or at least, generate even more intriguing questions.