Understanding different cultures...

[RadioRaheem84]

...from the general to the specific.

Just like there is a general and almost shallow attempt to understand all Americans by people of the world, I would like to do the same with figuring out some of the elements of European culture.

Something that I still try to understand quite a bit of was my intermingling with various international students when I was attending summer school at a top school.

There were various people from a sundry set of nations and the incomes varied too (especially since I was a working middle class kid). I met people from Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, China and Venezuela, but the vast majority were from Europe; Italy, Spain, UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.

Of course, my time there was not a representation of whole populations but I was just do damn curious as to what the general culture of each nation was.I mean people can get a round about impression of Texan culture from me in various ways, but overall I am not representative.

But I was curious of the general insecurity, stiffness, near obsession with luxury, class, etc amongst upper crust Northern Europeans.

For instance, there is this water bottling company called Poland Springs in the Northeast (where I was attending school), and one of the Dutch kids said that no one in Holland would drink this water because it had the word "Poland" in it. I had no idea what he meant until he explained to me the situation of Polish migrant workers. I ended my friendship with him right there.

Second, and this is where I get my disdain of technocratic Northern Europeans from, there was this ultra-Third Way posistionist from Denmark in my economic development class who insisted that every single social ill could be solved with a market based initiative or a government program run under market style efficiency. He was callous of any revolutionary movement and exhibited a display of arrogance that I would have never attributed to a college kid. Yet, through out all this he thought of himself as leading in a long tradition of liberal-left humanist thinkers.

The people I got along with the most were Southern Europeans of the Italian, Spanish and Greek variety. French 50/50. Even if some of them were upper crust they still had tendencies in them that were largely pro-Republican.

I mean I could go on and on, but I do not want my experience to be confused as ignorance on my part to conflate the actions random people as an over-generalization of X culture.

There were the typical Americans too that one could come away with solidifying their impression of Americans, especially me, but this is a question of overall general culture that is brought from the top on down.

I am really trying to understand the actions of the Northern Europeans at the school, and the overall general culture of places like Denmark, Netherlands, etc. The parts that start at the top and trickle down. What gave the Danish kid in my economic development class the utter gaul to think that his ways were at the tip of the cusp of solving world problems? Even with all the arrogance there was a sense of insecurity too.

[TC]

There is no such thing as a typical European or a typical American. What you're looking for are stereotypes, but the fact is that every nation on the planet is diverse in personality type, culture, preferences, etc - national characters and cultures are myths. Sure there are prevailing cultures - what the ruling class espouses in elements of the media and how elements of the ruling class behave (sometimes large, sometimes small) - and there are stereotypes of working class and counter-cultures (largely those that the ruling class projects onto them, which some members then adopt in their own performance of culture)...


...but generalizations from personal experience, even the deep personal experience of living somewhere for a long time, show you nothing but small scale correlation which is not a meaningful basis for claiming large scale tendencies or characteristics. Where you are within any given society and who you choose to associate with and who you are given the option of associating with, who you are exposed to, as an individual, these will all be far bigger contributors to your experience of "the culture" than any sort of national cultural traits true of all or most of the population.

[synthesis]

This is really a classic example of the inherently subjective nature of anthropology overall. On that note, Taleb:


I am really trying to understand the actions of the Northern Europeans at the school, and the overall general culture of places like Denmark, Netherlands, etc.

"Social science means inventing a brand of human that we can understand." - QOTD

[timbaly]

Your question is far too complex for an answer. Any answer would be immensely subjective. and would cause an uproarious debate between the members of this site. I suppose that makes it not too different from most threads.

[Political_Chucky]

Your question is far too complex for an answer. Any answer would be immensely subjective. and would cause an uproarious debate between the members of this site. I suppose that makes it not too different from most threads.

I don't really believe that. Different cultures have different "stereotypes" that they can fall in biologically by the way they were raised. A very basic way of proving this is in body language.

http://http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/22546/the_culture_of_body_language.html

Take insults, for example. You know, forms of communication that say, “in your face, jerk!” Aussies (citizens of Australia) often extend the thumb as if to say yes (our meaning, not theirs – as in thumbs up from Roger Ebert), except as if to mean to say “you idiot!” Meanwhile, in North America, we give offensive people the middle finger because it looks like a certain male body part when formed with our hands. Other cultures ma insult people with the finger-thumb zero sign (which we see as “A-OK” here), a v-shape formed with the first two fingers after the thumb (we call that the “victory sign”) or the index finger and the small little finger all the way back from the thumb.


I believe if people allow themselves to fall into a stereotype, which most of the masses do, then technically stereotypes aren't totally false. It just depends on the individuals, what they have learned from birth, and what they accept to belive. No one is really original after all, we all take a little something from everyone that molds into our own.

I by no means am saying that stereotypes that consist of "lazy Mexicans" or "smart Asians" or any strong racial stereotype are plausible, but what I am pointing towards is the possibility that many of the same group of people may have been taught to think a certain way.

[synthesis]

Different cultures have different "stereotypes" that they can fall in biologically by the way they were raised

lol wut

[Political_Chucky]

lol wut

Well what I mean is like, for example, a white predominant family in the south who raises their kids into a white supremacist type of thinking in their household, or like RadioRaheems encounter with a dutch kid, who was obviously taught, like the supposed majority, to not drink the polish bottling company's water.

[synthesis]

Well, no, I understood what you were trying to say. I think that the main problem with this line of analysis (and with "anthropology" as a whole) is that it is utterly and undeniably impossible to satisfactorily quantify the degree and statistical limitations of the "stereotypes" which ultimately renders the entire paradigm essentially meaningless.

But what I was responding to was probably poor phrasing on your part - nothing personal, I phrase things poorly all the time. What I mean is, when you say that "people fall into stereotypes biologically" followed immediately with "by the way they were raised" you're basically stating both sides of the debate over what it means to be a human. I think you meant to say "physically" instead of "biologically" but even that doesn't quite cut it. But I did understand what you were saying.

[Political_Chucky]

Well, no, I understood what you were trying to say. I think that the main problem with this line of analysis (and with "anthropology" as a whole) is that it is utterly and undeniably impossible to satisfactorily quantify the degree and statistical limitations of the "stereotypes" which ultimately renders the entire paradigm essentially meaningless.

But what I was responding to was probably poor phrasing on your part - nothing personal, I phrase things poorly all the time. What I mean is, when you say that "people fall into stereotypes biologically" followed immediately with "by the way they were raised" you're basically stating both sides of the debate over what it means to be a human. I think you meant to say "physically" instead of "biologically" but even that doesn't quite cut it. But I did understand what you were saying.

Meh, naw your right, I did phrase that bad haha, and taken outta context could sound worse. But I do believe that people allow themselves and push themselves to fit into certain stereotypes. Obviously though, they aren't wanting to be called a stereotype, but I feel as if the status quo is to think and act like everyone else. I don't know where I'm going with this though anymore and I think I'm going away from the posters original point now haha.

[synthesis]

Meh, naw your right, I did phrase that bad haha, and taken outta context could sound worse. But I do believe that people allow themselves and push themselves to fit into certain stereotypes. Obviously though, they aren't wanting to be called a stereotype, but I feel as if the status quo is to think and act like everyone else. I don't know where I'm going with this though anymore and I think I'm going away from the posters original point now haha.

You're not going away from the OP at all. You're talking about the basis of what it means to belong to a "culture," the role played by agency and so on. You're vague, but so is the subject matter, so we'll call it even ;)

[timbaly]

I don't really believe that. Different cultures have different "stereotypes" that they can fall in biologically by the way they were raised. A very basic way of proving this is in body language.

http://http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/22546/the_culture_of_body_language.html


I believe if people allow themselves to fall into a stereotype, which most of the masses do, then technically stereotypes aren't totally false. It just depends on the individuals, what they have learned from birth, and what they accept to belive. No one is really original after all, we all take a little something from everyone that molds into our own.

I by no means am saying that stereotypes that consist of "lazy Mexicans" or "smart Asians" or any strong racial stereotype are plausible, but what I am pointing towards is the possibility that many of the same group of people may have been taught to think a certain way.


I'll give you that the body language stuff isn't subjective. I just feel that RadioRaheem84 is asking more about mindset than physical gestures. The type of people that leave their country for school are likely not going to be the most typical or representative of their country. I think the people he's had contact with are in a sub-group that is likely a-typical. however there are plenty of atypical sub-groups within the country. I just think that very few people are actually "typical" in every way. Most people are not going to be average in all aspects of their lives so it's hard to say what a typical person is. Maybe the best way to find out what typical culture is to read up on studies about attitudes.