Job Discussion Forums

[JosephP]

The idiot is asking the wrong question. He should be asking where he can get a cold beer.

[spidey]

What "idiot" would you be refering to......Yourself?

[Stephen Jones]

The guy's in Mongolia. Cold beer isn't a problem. The last job I saw advertised there only paid $100 a month, but you got free internet access and a free fur coat when you got off the plane (no kidding!)

[guest of Japan]

People who write messages on an English language forum have not abandoned their culture. They still kling to it. Introspection and egoism are different things. By saying you abandon a culture you imply that you were superior to it. This is not introspection. It seems to me that many of the posters have moderately disengaged themselves from their native cultures. I include myself in this catagory, though at times I am fully engaged, but just sitting on far off terrain.

[Lyov]

I appriciate your post. I agree that since I still do use the english language as a primary means of communication then I can not fully relinquish my culture. When I learn Mongolian better then things will change.
The idea that I am saying I am superior to my culture is also interesting. I don't believe that superiority is an issue. As I was saying before the only way to dissconnect from ones culture is to realize the subconscious roots of that culture and vaccinate yourself through the realization of alternatives. This could be illustrated by the change from absolutist to realitivist. It is therefore not the idea of superiority but the realization that everything is realitive and just represents options for daily life. To put it another way am I saying I am superior if I refuse to believe that my culture is the greatest in the world?
The entire process is introspection with a heavy dose of egotism but one must be a little egotistical to think that there is something inside oneself worth looking at (and in great detail)
Certainly though I would not call my self a realitivist anymore because it is usually a dangerous and demented state that can lead to madness.

[guest of Japan]

I'm sorry, but I don't know realitive and realitivist, nor can I find them in the dictionary. As such I'm not sure what you are saying, since these words were given great prominence in your last post.

[Lyov]

[Lyov]

Realitivism is the idea that any construction of one culture can find an alternative or even oppisite construction from another culture. All things then become arbitrary because they then represent one option out of many and not the single absolute. Without one being better than the other how is one to make a decision?

[David Bowles]

And couldn't it just be a manifestation of your own culture that you choose to 'abandon' it? The valuing of individual freedom, travelling abroad as a presitgious and enjoyable leisure activity, the lure of the 'exotic', and everything cartoons have ever taught you about following your dreams and being who you are... Even if it were possible to wholly leave your culture behind (a prerequisite for which would probably be to forget English altogether), by doing that you might just be living it out.

Perhaps it's possible to talk about a time when there were many cultures- humans migrated and moved across the world before they started writing. But I agree that in the modern world any place, any people, that you can reach by definition shares something of 'your' culture- even if all it shares is you. People who are born in an area, however, acquire 'their' culture in a way that must be impossible for an 'outsider', because the outsider can't really stop evaluating and learning in terms of what he/she knows. On the other hand, everyone is unique: we all learn and understand 'our' culture (a diverse mix of ideas etc) in a unique configuration, so the position of the outsider isn't qualitatively different from that of the native. I don't think you can drop all the old concepts that come with you- but you can acquire a load of new ones, and therein lies the fun. That's what I think, anyways...

(and isn't it spelt 'relativism'? Although I suppose any way to spell it is equally valid )

[Aramas]

I like the view expressed in Schopenhauer's essay "On an Apparent Intention in the Fate of the Individual", in which he postulates that our lives have a consistent plot, as though composed by a novelist. Of course, the plot doesn't become obvious until the last page of our lives, but meanwhile, every character in our life has some significance, however small. And in turn, our presence is significant in their story. If our story needs to contain a bit of travel and some foreign characters, then that's what we do - if we can find the courage.

All of our decisions are made subconsciously long before we go to all the bother of trying to justify them. We can try to ignore the call of the subconscious, but it will keep tugging. Many people lack the courage to step outside of the box that they have built for themselves, and have to settle for suppressing the urge (work, alcohol, drugs, consumerism, sport etc.). But for those of us who are willing to let the pages turn and see where our story leads, the rewards are great - as are the costs. A certain degree of alienation from the culture that spawned us is inevitable, although I've found that admiration and respect are far more prevalent responses to our 'desertion' than are envy or spite. Leaving our mother culture to follow the natural course of our lives is no more a betrayal of our heritage than leaving our parents is a betrayal of their love.

If we feel drawn to another person/country/continent/whatever, the important part is to recognise the desire and act on it. I seem to recall that someone on this forum uses a William Blake quote in their signature, somewhat along the lines of "He who desires and acts not, breeds pestilence."

After a decade or two it becomes obvious to some of us that, as we look back along the road we have travelled, our passing has had a profound and sometimes destructive effect on our fellow travellers. The easiest and most self defeating response to such a revelation is to bow out of the story. We tell ourselves that having no effect on fellow travellers is better than producing a negative one. This is, of course, a fallacy - and a very destructive one. From our subjective perspective it is impossible to qualify or quantify the effect we have had on others, or even determine it's nature. What may seem like a devastatingly negative effect on someone may actually be the catalyst that moves them on to greater things. Who are we to judge?

I'm all for advancing the story whenever I can pluck up the courage, and avoiding the temptation to over analyse. Rational thought is a powerful tool, but it's not what drives us.

[merlin]

Lyov said-

[Nauczyciel]

When I was leaving for China last year my only thought was to gain some professional experience, earn some money, and see interesting places. But living there had a more profound impact on me than I could have ever thought. If I am ever to go back there I will make even better use of my time, but I am sure that in the back of my mind I will have my homeland.

It is a question of relativism also in the way that makes me a representative of my town in my country, of my country on my continent, my continent on another continent, and my planet in the universe. Even if you hate your culture (let's stick to this embarassing word) you will be perceived as its representative and have to take a stand on it. You can never pretend to be completely detached from your original environment. The only thing is whether you are happy with what foreigners associate you with, or not. And this, sadly, isn't always a question of choice.

[Lyov]

Firstly I want to thank everyone who has responded to this post. I've found your responses very interesting. This is truly a big topic and while I am come off like I have answers its just because I've come to know some revelant theories on the matter. But like anything knowing a little bit about something only helps you figure out how to phrase the questions without giving any answers. But as a matter of fact I don't even think the theorists have adaquate answers, just more questions.
There are a couple of points that I've been trying to get across. One is that being a member of your culture is a choice and you can in fact turn your back on it. Now for many it doesn't seem like a choice because your native culture created all of the options that you have to choose from. Something that I always liked was Neil Stephenson's ideas of culture from his book 'Snow Crash' He said that the brain is like computer hardware and culture is the software and the brain is basically non-rewritable. Its obiviously more complicated than this but I always liked the anology.
Its true that you can never loose (unless you have brain damage or something), any cultural trait you learn will always be with you. But there is a certain important point about culture in that it only gives you the one option (or a limited spectrum of options) and alternative options just don't exist. Since alternatives don't exist they wouldn't come to you. This is an absolutly important feature of culture because it keeps everyone acting in ways that are predicatable to everyone else. This can be seen as a cage, limiting your ability to choose. Now when an alternative is really understood then the cage for perhaps just that one thing is broken and you're suddenly given this amazing freedom to choose. Where there was one option for a given action now there is two (or more whatever). The original option is in a sense gone because it can never recover its position as the only option. So while you can never elimatinate your original softwear you can transfigure it to such a point that it becomes a new entity.
This is also a reason why it can be difficult to return to your native culture after such a process because you will always be aware that those around you are only seeing a fraction of the same picture that you are seeing. If you attempt to share your new knowledge you will be seen as either a guru or a lunatic. Only be pretending that those things never happened can you once again be truly among them. So in this case no matter where you go in the world you will always be pretending to be something that you are not.
Something more about the single culture idea. You said that maybe the only thing another culture shares is you because you went there. My question is who are you? Culture in this definition is Shared and learned ways of thinking and behaving among a group of people. So if your there but your not sharing or learning then it seems reasonable to say that you are about as interesting to them as a cardboard cutout of a person, your not real. The other thing is if all cultures are really one then which one gets to be the model? This was idea in Anthropological history where Europe was the model and every other culture was evolving towards it. This is a racist idea and uses values judgements from one culture towards others.
One cultural universal that Anthropologists have found is called 'Mother-in-law' avoidance meaning that every culture that Anthropologists have studied in the married man wants to avoid his mother-in-law.

[Ariadne]

My husband and my mother were great friends. It's really not that unusual. I think the comedians and the anthropologists might have it wrong.

[Lyov]

Mother-in-law avoidance is just a general thing. Cultural Anthropology gives great leeway for individual deviance. They are usually trying in fact to establish were the extreme ends are within a paticular spectrum of possiblities as represented by a particular culture.
One question I've always had difficulties with is whether or not (currently) Native americas can be said to have a different culture than mainstream americans. They speak the same language, they do many of the same things, they have a different history but it seems like their future has been melted in the pot. How much difference is necessary to define a different culture from the majority? And what about a second generation chinese (for instance) living in America. They speak english like a native but their parents are hardline chinese and they know both things. Are they really bi-cultural or an American with Alternative roots? What if they've never been to China and their knowledge of Chinese language is very limited, how does that effect things?