The author talked about how our view of the world, if we are number-one types, are based on the frames we unconsiously developed in our society. He states that:
"The worst problem is that the number-one types probably aren't aware that they have any frames at all. They are burried in patterns of unconsious habit, lost in the lessons of childhood, that drill in how the world works until akid forgets and figures that's how the world naturally works."
He also mentions that if we really want to learn another languaculture, we should first consider what is "natural" fro us as just "a frame" (p. 162). I think things became more clear now but here is the question: Doesn't that imply that one's identity could be threatened, I mean if someone says "Well, it is bad to deceive someone, but I think this is only a frame I have in mind, so deception might be allowed." I think the writer has excluded morals from discussion in one of the past chapters, however, he is now talking about "lying" as only a speech act that needs a frame to be understood. What do you suggest?
Comments (2)
Personally, I'm not a strong supporter of cultural relativism. I think, for example, that many cultures are morally better off than Nazi Germany, for instance. And I'm very unhappy with the way some (and many still )cultures have treated women. However, what is important to note is that a lot of the moral judgements we make about other cultures are misinformed. While I don't think that judging (if judging must be done) another culture only bit its won values and standards is sufficient, I think it by all means is necessary. And in many cases, things Americans may see as deficits in others (such as the MExican versions of truth) may, in fact, be a rich point we completely misunderstood--one that puts the Mexican "lie" on par with the Anglo social lie.
Certainly there is some merit to the idea that one's cultural identity can be morally flawed--another good reason to be exposed to many foreign cultures! But I'd say 95% of the time, what Americans assume are moral deficits in others are just innocent cultural differences we can't, don't, or (perhaps more troublingly) won't understand.
Posted by Michele Harris | April 3, 2008 10:34 PM
Posted on April 3, 2008 22:34
I like to look at things objectively, when possible. In the case of some cultures, my understanding of their social and historical backgrounds are severely lacking because our education system doesn't really emphasize world history like systems in other countries. When I do have the background, I can usually see WHY certain events occurred (Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid, Vietnam) but that doesn't mean I support it morally--I merely understand the driving forces that led to the events, and I never forget that we're all human beings capable of doing the very same atrocious acts. When we construct new frames, I don't think we're losing our identities. I think we may change our thinking processes and what we value, but I think we remain the same person. Along with that, having a static identity would be boring, don't you think? Building new frames promotes a dynamic identity--we're constantly learning about other people and as a result, can expose ourselves to other ways of thought and life. To some people we may change, but is that a loss of identity or a sign of growth?
Posted by Brad Landgraf | April 5, 2008 12:18 PM
Posted on April 5, 2008 12:18