What is the role of gender, class, race and ethnicity in the cultural construction of one's identity - Essay Example

?What is the role of gender, race and ethni in the cultural construction of one’s identity? Present a specific case study using concrete examples drawn from the readings and from other sources as well as other knowledge you have of contemporary society. Culture is a complex term that has several dimensions. Due to its multiple fields and branches, it has especially become difficult to define culture in respect to a specific idea. The definition that is accepted by many disciplines of Anthropology is one proposed by British Anthropologist Edward Tylor according to whom, “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (McCleonon, 1998, p.528). Although vague in definition, the broad patterns of culture are observed within the makeup and function of societies. These pattern configurations are the basis of cultural differences that distinguishes and authenticates particular groups of individuals. A pioneer of American anthropology, Alfred Kroeber asserts that these patterns within culture are simply arrangements of interdependent systems of internal relationships which serve to give any culture its coherent definition and are what seem to be the most productive in terms of distinguishing and formulating culture. What distinguish culture from society as a whole are the learned and shared concepts of culture found in its concept of customs and beliefs (Kroeber, 1952, p. 3-11). At a reductionist level of culture lie the individuals who give meaning to culture and whose identity in turn is built upon the cultural constructionism of these cultural patterns. In terms of the traditional patterns of culture observed within society, the elements of ethnicity, race, class, and gender appear to be the most contemporarily prominent. Although these patterns of culture are transient, they have become a crux in the identification of cultural groups across human society. As such, the relative translation of these patterns across groups serves as a form of imprinted identification accessed by the individual in order to self-identify and influence their roles in society. It is also important to point out that such definitions of ethnicity, class, race, and gender are invalid empirically and are only social constructs that are used superficially to define groups and those within it. According to Urdy (1994), gender can be described as a term that indicates towards a borderline between males and females, which is characterized with the support of distinctive features. Recognition of gender, sexuality, societal appearance and other types of distinctive features, all come under the title of gender as a term. Although the gender manifestation of sex does have biological significance, gender in its full definition is a social construct much like race. Upton (2011) explains that every society has its own characteristics and a gender defines the roles of people in a society. Male and female have different roles, their physical features can be comprehended and utilized diversely, their functions are different and their relationships are different, all the features need to be understood with clarity. In light of its social construction and fluidity, gender has become an element that individuals continue to use in order to determine their identity and in which they categorize others as a way of coming to terms with their respected cultures. This process of self-identification varies among cultures. In her inspirational case study termed “Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies” (1935), Margaret Mead is able to find out that culture plays a major role in settling on the temperamental diversities between males and females and describes that the differences are not internal but externally defined by means of culture. Mead discovered differing patterns of male and female behavior among three distinct New Guinea cultures that were Arapesh, Biwat and Mundugmor and her findings show that all deviated from the classic anticipation of gender function on western contemporary society (Mead, 1963). Mead ascertained a disposition for both genders that was temperate, receptive, and supportive according to Arapesh culture. In Biwat culture, both genders were fierce and belligerent in nature and were interested to gain authority and status. For the Mundugumor culture, the temperaments of both genders were quite diverse if compared wholly such as the female figure was leading, uncongenial and administrative while the male figure was less accountable and more reliant in terms of sentiments (Library of Congress, 2010). Inspired by her findings, Mead concluded that the gender identity of individuals in society is dictated by the various cultural norms, and customs to which they belong (Mead, 1963, p. 221). The first anthropological conception of ethnicity was quite indistinguishable with the social construction of race. In eighteenth-century, the social theorist Max Weber refined the term and defined it contemporarily as, “those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both” (Weber, 2005, p. 389). One could successfully argue that Weber’s definition of ethnicity is both solid and relevant in defining the relationships of social groups linked through blood, religion, community, nationality, ancestry, or value. Race on the other is purely a social construct. In her book, “The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters”, Ruth Frankenberg asserts that there is no concrete and empirically (biologically) consistent definition of race, there is only the social construction of the term race that is made dependent on societal groupings and their cooperative concurrence, obligation and approval of the concept (Frankenberg, 1993). As such, this paper assumes the pretext that the term race is academically irrelevant, and those qualities deemed to be its foundations will instead be configured into concepts of ethnicity. Bryan Keith Alexander in his memoir/ethnography, “Fading, Twisting, and Weaving: An Interpretive Ethnography of the Black Barbershop as Cultural Space” expounds on the nature of cultural performances, cultural space, and its relevance in terms of self-identification through the ethnically grounded experience of “Black Barbershops”. The basis of Alexander’s assertions of cultural space and performance are tied with the tenants that cultures are both learned and passed. Thus, the Barbershops in the Black Community as defined by Alexander served as a vector of cultural space allowing for cultural performances that acculturated the desired audience, in this case those belonging to the black community as identified by their unique type of hair. This exclusivity on the part of both hair and ethnicity has made Black Barbershops and salons an iconic symbol of African American culture, much like the African American church. The contemporary comedy films Barbershop and Barbershop II seem to reflect this cultural connotation within Black Community. Alexander in a participatory observation ethnography recognized the significance of the Barbershops as child who experienced the cultural diffusion and self-identification associated with this cultural space. “Barbershops in the Black community are discursive spaces in which the confluence of Black hair care, for and by Black people, and small talk establish a context for cultural exchange” (Alexander, 2003, p. 105). In order to contemplate this concept, it is initially important to understand why Barbershops in Black Communities are unique spaces. Alexander argues that the African American possess an Afro-textured hair that requires special care uncommon within the barbershops and saloons of general populations. Thus, the caring and grooming of hair among African Americans makes Barbershops in the Black Community exclusive. In large part, this exclusiveness, in addition to the camaraderie of empathy found among customer and barber serve to make Barbershops within Black Communities an invaluable mode of cultural transmission that is unique to African Americans. In an observation of African American women in the salon, Alexander asserted that Black women came into this culture space with the information that their requirements will be fulfilled as a result of their providers being Black, empathizing with them. (Alexander, 2003, p. 121). Thus, the Barbershop and hair salons become fundamental and unambiguous cultural locations contained by the Black population in which the self-identification of being uniquely African American is built. It is also important to point out that the cutting of hair in these Barbershops is seemingly secondary to the cultural performances observed. In light of Mead’s earlier assertions, Alexander’s Black barbershop/salon is “a site where Black people come in contact with each other through touch, the manipulation of hair (length, shape, texture, and form), the sounds of talk, information sharing, and the deep penetration of cultural memory” (Alexander, 2003, p.125). The making of the hair that are black in color can be described as “specifically cultural activity and practice,” and the salons that are restricted sites for the Black play an effective part in “socializing hair,”, which means that the Black population can mingle with one another and describe themselves as a communal group (Mercer, 1994, pp. 99-100). Class is understood to be the classification of individuals in respect of their perceived contribution to society, granting them meaning to certain rights. Like gender and race, these elements are ambiguous and vary across cultures, dependent on their temporal and spatial significance. For example, the Indianologist conception of class is static and assigns individuals into caste systems, made significant through its theocratic based culture of religion, materialism, and politics. Although economy and politics are the elements at the core of this caste system, the religion of Hinduism s ascribe it with a quality of infallibility traditionally used by interests group to legitimize perpetual power. This reciprocal relationship between Hinduism and the caste system validate the ostracism of a caste termed the Dalit, literally translated as the untouchables (Damal, 2005). In respect to classification, Dalits are so low ranking that they have traditionally been regarded as away from any type of cast. The structuralism explanation of this ostracism has to do with the perceived unclean occupations associated with the Dalits (Satyani, 2005). What is significant and most interesting is the self-identification of the Dalits within the caste system. The social construction of their position within this system has been so perpetual that they originated and refer to themselves as unclean—essentially accepting this identity. Universally speaking, the categorization and self-identification of individuals in terms of class is made clear in light of their respected cultures. It is significant to understand that culture and the individual are mutually entwined. The cultures of various groups define the identity of the individual within them and in turn define culture as a society—they are essentially indistinguishable. Moreover, the basis that culture is both learned and transmitted allows for cultural spaces where cultural performances are perceived and shared. The factors of ethnicity, race, class, and gender are limited and socially constructed elements of culture which continue to influence the identity of the individual. American cultural anthropologist Margret Mead recognized that influence of these elements in the cultural construction of one’s identity. According to her description, cultures define individuals as unique beings that show distinctive features, which are comprehended again and again and articulated with the passage of time and transitive behavior of an individual throughout his existence. She also commented that cultures teach humans to be humans and human beings are of diverse features that are designed by different cultures (Mead, 2004, p. 114). REFERENCES Alexander, B.K. (2001). Reflections, riffs and remembrances: The Black queer studies in The Millennium Conference. Callaloo: A Journal of African-American and African Arts and Letters, 23, 1283-1305. Camic, Charles, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubek. (2005). Max Weber's Economy and Society: A Critical Companion. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Damal, Swarnakumar. (2005). Dalits of Nepal: Who are Dalits in Nepal. International Nepal Solidarity Network. Frankenberg, Ruth. (1988). The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters. University of California Santa Barber: Dissertations Publishing. Kroeber, Alfred. (1952). The Nature of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952. Library of Congress. Patricia Francis. 2010. 27 July: < http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/field-sepik.html> McClenon, James. (1998). "Tylor, Edward B(urnett)". Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Ed. William Swatos and Peter Kivisto. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. 528-29. Mead, Margaret. (1963). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: Morrow. Mead, Margaret. (2009). “Gender, Child Rearing, and Culture: Fieldwork and Theory.” Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. Ed. Jerry Moore. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. 107-115. Mercer, K. (1994).Welcome to the jungle: New positions in Black cultural studies. New York: Routledge. Udry, J. Richard. (November 1994). "The Nature of Gender". Demography 31: 561–573. Upton, R.L. (2011). DePauw University. 16 May: . Satyani, Prabhu (2005). "The Situation of the Untouchables in Pakistan". ASR Resource Center. Retrieved 2008-09-27. Read More