Autonomous Influencing Views Creating a Culturally Crisis Society

June 12, 2008 – 12:06 am

By, Brian A. Lewis

Abstract
Culture, was once “thought of as a whole, internally consistent system of symbols and values held in common by members of bounded social groups, including whole society” (Erickson, 2002 p. 229). Culture shapes the nature of many features of every developmental environment. Nearly every aspect of development is influenced by its environment which affects survival and provide protective as well as risk factors for health and success throughout the entire course of human life. Social context is, at an assortment of levels, inherent to the developmental process. This paper examines how individual influence of culture has shaped and changed views of the primary origins and meaning of culture as a holistic construct and the impact autonomous views has upon creating a cultural crisis society.

Autonomous Influencing Views Creating a Culturally Crisis Society
The word culture alone is deemed “one of the most complex words in the English language. Lonner (1984) noted, the “culture concept has been examined, poked at, pushed, rolled over, killed, revived, and reified ad infinitum” (p.108). Nevertheless, the apparent importance of culture as a precursor to behavior is currently thought to be on the upswing (Erez & Earley, 1993) and is seen as the missing link (Schein, 1996) to advancing our understanding of the dynamics of organizational behavior.

British anthropologist, Edward Tylor (1970) notes culture or civilization “as that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Erickson, 2002 p.300). In this defining, culture is treated as a whole entity with various aspects of culture included as both behavior and symbol systems. Throughout time, there became as shift in this concept of culture from having to do with behaviors of social action to placing more emphasis upon symbol systems and ideology.

Culture was once considered as the development of nature within the context of human environment. Culture (from the Latin coler) meant to tend, cultivate, inhabit. Soon, this simple view of culture became more complex, thus losing its original meaning. “The complication of the idea of culture followed the diversification and distended specialization of society’s political, industrial and educational forms” (Cooper 2001 p. 163).

Claude Levi-Strauss defines culture as “any ethnography unit which, from the point of view of the researcher and in comparison with other units, presents significant differences” (Touraine, 1998). From this perspective of culture, at first appears confounding, as nothing assures the differences observed between the two cultures are interdependent or universal, but rather based upon what society deems as its unifying principle. However, this definition takes into account the shift in view from culture as a make up of inherited patterns of behavior which we acquire as members of a given society that convey its values to the “voluntaristic” construction of a set of norms and practices.

Autonomous Influencing Views Creating a Culturally Crisis Society
This paper will begin with a discussion of significant theoretical approaches relative to the cultural development perspective and how these models impact human growth and ideology. Next, this paper will take at look back in time to examine the origins of culture, its initial contributing influence and the present controlling forces that have altered its original unifying construct. Throughout this paper, this writer will relate Biblical perspective that emphasizes how culture relates, both past and present. This paper will conclude by exploring the consequences of what this writer deems “a culture in crisis” resulting from autonomous views of culture.

Culture, according to (Feldman, 2007) defines culture as “a set of behaviors, beliefs, values and expectations shared by members of a particular culture…consisting of subculture groups” (p. 313). The influence of culture must be considered in order to begin to understand human development. The contextual perspective acknowledges the “relationship between individuals and their physical, cognitive, personality, and social worlds” (p. 23).

Two major theories guide the process of such developmental relationship, the first of which is known as the bioecological approach. Psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner identifies five, of which the following four levels in his approach that are deemed influential in understanding human development known as microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. The microsystem is a child’s everyday exposure to their influential environment within the home, with cargivers, friends and teachers. The mesosystem associates with various aspects on the microsystem, linking child to parent, students to teachers, employees to bosses, friends to friends. The exosystem and macrosystem represents a broader more encompassing societal and cultural influence such as government and politics, communities, schools, religions and places of worship and the media, all of which have immediate and major impact on personal development.

The Origins of Culture as a Unitary Construct
From the defining of the exosystem and macrosytem levels, it is important to digress and note who and what influences society and culture and how influence has changed over time. This day and age, culture is shaped by a small number of gatekeepers. The unfortunate reality, with respect to culture, the majority do not rule. The majority has little influence upon cultural formation. Instead, Neuhaus (2007) notes elites dominate as he writes:
Even though these elites may be a minority of the population, they succeed in presenting themselves as mainstream through their control of powerful institutions in the media, in entertainment, in the arbitrations of literary tastes, in the great research universities and professional associations, and in the worlds of business and advertisement that seek the approval of those who control the commanding heights of culture. Increasingly, grassroots political efforts to reverse the current cultural direction are proving futile. (p.12).
The origins of culture were viewed as unitary and holistic with its controlling force based upon universal truths that no longer exists within the present view of culture.

The 20th century perspective of culture was based upon functionalism which conventionalized “culture as holistic and unified, with its various aspects mutually supportive and complementary” (Erickson 2002 p. 300). By the late 1950’s and 1960’s, there began a shift in conception of culture as having to do with symbol systems and ideology as opposed to behaviors of social action. The functionalist recognize socialization as the primary means by which culture and society were replicated from generation to generation and as such the primary basis for social order. This pattern formed the basis by which children adopted their value system, worldview and societal rule systems. This trend carried on throughout adulthood, conforming and adhering to the general societal rules.

The Origins of Culture as a Unitary Construct
The second major theory relative to cultural development which draws explicit similarities from the functionalist perspective regarding replication of culture and society is the sociocultural theory of Russian developmentalist Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s theory emphasizes how cognitive development is contingent upon social interactions between members of cultures. This theory emphasizes development as a reciprocal transaction between persons within a child’s environment and the child. This developmental pattern becomes a continuous cycle of learned behavior. Vygotsky is noted as a pioneer in emphasizing the importance of culture in human development.

An expressed example resulting from expected and implicit cultural identify can be found in the social clock theory. Social clocks are described as being culturally determined and a direct reflection of societal expectations. The unfortunate reality of social clocks is its “timing” is inherently wrong, as it is construed by human perception. In addition, social clocks are based upon cultural influences that are also flawed. Aspects of culture, irregardless of cultural background specified, are a cause of much dissention. Ones inherently held cultural connections and values has created division within the Body of Christ, which results in a multitude of religious beliefs. The controlling force behind the basis of culture is mans desire to have autonomy over what he or she deems right.

In defining culture in voluntaristic terms, “enables a central regulating power system to control, limit and even repress the diversity of interest, of opinions and of representatives” (Touraine 1998 p. 140). Thus culture and society are interdependent as defining culture in these terms is what allows the construction of a unified society, which without a cultural unity, would appear fragmented. The origins of culture were based upon empires and kingdoms uniting in a religious authority and political power. Culture was regarded as a means for producing order and linking together religious values and social hierarchies with technical and economic practices. Culture is thus indivisible from an absolute, traditional and monarchical power.

Autonomous Views of Culture
Political democracies soon became consumed by secularist views resulting from the rise of British and French style nation. This soon gave way to an increase of religious freedom resulting in social order rather than religious order in command. Culture became reflective of class thus united in the interest and represented by the dominant class with the legal and educational principles serving to maintain order. Another modern shift in view of culture is the development of moral individualism and an increased identification with “social sub-systems: religion, family, art, economy etc., which reduced the strength of central power and thus of culture as society’s unifying force” (Touraine, 1998 p. 141).

Moral and cultural principles have become eroded as society becomes increasing disconnected from a supernatural authority:
Society no longer recognizes any transcendental order-neither divine law, reason nor a philosophy…the only unifying, or at least mediating, principle between the world of instrumentality and the world of identity is each individual’s or each group’s desire to combine these two worlds within its own experience (Touraine, 1998 p. 146).

Touraine views this process as a desire to incorporate cultural identity into a project of “individuation”. Thus cultural principles of social integration become insolvent by the division of strategic action from individuals living within the world. The end result, Touraine implies is that priority is given to individual life on the basis of preserving individual personality.

The demand for cultural rights has fueled the need for reinterpretation of our personal and collective identity. This has led us on a quest to satisfy what Sigmund Freud deemed the “Id”, described as wanting whatever feels good at the time with no consideration for the reality of the situation. This search was pivotal in Freud’s work. This line of thinking is not subject to the common good and general interest, nor to a divine or natural law, rather to a moral claim.
This is representative of a complete fragmentation of socio-cultural entities; societies are not longer unified by cultural principles or logical systems of power.

Autonomous Views of Culture
Conflict theorist, Randal Collins notes “the divisions and dynamics of society are based on inevitable conflicts and ideas, resources and power. Society is less a unity than a composite of completing networks” (Schwartz 1999 p. 45). Collins believes that society has four basic networks: military, political, economical, and cultural, which, when one gains control -as the cultural has today- tends to result in domination of the other networks and determine society’s direction. Thus, the cultural network characterized by education, art media and entertainment is the cooperative governing source of existing social power.

Philip Rieff, in his book entitled Sacred Order/Social Order: My Life Among the Deathworks argues that identity, morality, and society itself are impossible to maintain unless they are premised on an existing sacred order. Thus, the development of culture is predicated upon the conversion of sacred order into social order. The unfortunate reality of today is society’s detachment from the vertical relationship with the sacred. Rieff identifies three historical eras or worlds: fate, faith and fictions, the first of which he deems as pagan in nature; the second described as theistic and lastly the postmodern third world, based upon fictions. Rieff identifies the third world as representative of the American culture, and participants as “transliterate no sacred order, only fictions and rhetoric of power and self-interest. Every world, until our third, has been a form of address to some ultimate authority” (Sackmann 1997 p.247).

The culture war, as we know it today, is unprecedented; historic conflicts were competing between scared and symbolic religious systems. Sociologist, James Davidson Hunter, writes “What makes the contemporary culture war distinctive is that it is a movement of enmity towards all sacred orders and directed, in its particulars, against the verticals in authority that meditate sacred order to social order” (Tajfel 1982 p. 30).

A Culture without Submission
The evolutionary view of culture are the results of ones adamant need for autonomy and unwillingness to adhere to authority, particularly, Gods authority expressed in His Law. While, this is not specifically a problem with adherence to Gods Law, the problems with mans submission can be found in the first created beings, that being Adam and Eve. To submit requires that one yield to the authority of another based upon hierarchy. Even Jesus submitted to Gods authority by both his obedience to Gods will and to his earthy parents.

Submission is a challenge, in part, to our desire to be free. The majority, however are not aware of what it means to be free. Galatians 5:13 asserts “therefore brothers, you are called to be free, but do not allow your freedom to indulge the sinful nature, rather serve one another in love”. The majority view freedom as being interchangeable and as such, aspects of freedom is not equally important to everyone. The end result is ones freedom is controlled by circumstances and emotions resulting in self righteous and self indulging attitudes and behavior, known as Freud’s “Id” notion. Peter expressed our redemption from such cultural conduct as he writes “knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers”.

Culture, once oriented around family-around mom and dad and all of the siblings and all of the cousins and all of the aunts and uncles, has become reoriented around individuals. Personal freedom and individual rights are paramount in reorientation. As such, the traditional authorities to which people once look to, have changed. The increase in perceived freedom from family and law, for example has its benefits that are found in artistic expression, economic entrepreneurship and self expression. This does not however, negate the fact that these new found freedoms has its downfalls that are expressed in increased crime for example, that is inextricably intertwined.

A Culture without Submission
“The denial of an absolute morality and an actual transcendent sacred order has real human and social consequences. We live in a culture where there are no acknowledged obligations to other people or institutions or God” (Schwarts & Bilsky 1987 p. 555). The position of all authority is directly fixed on the individual subjective self. A Christian, however, should recognize God’s rule over everything. We are subject to authority because of God and as such our submission to authority is not relative to being inferior, rather an expression of faith in God’s governing of His creation. A Christian’s submission is an act of trust in God and our government.

Exodus 16:2 states “Then the whole congregation of the children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. Judges 21:25 says “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. These two verses are explicit examples of mans problems with submission and need to cling to there culture. While Moses, through God, brought the people out of Egypt, the people brought with them the culture of Egypt and were never converted. The people refused to adhere to God’s traditions given by Moses while in the wilderness and taught to them. The result was being in constant conflict with their leader.

Everyone doing what is right in their own site is the autonomous freedom toward which our American culture is headed. Having no central law, authority or absolute standards that are universally accepted results in situational ethics. It is God’s desire, however that we operate not in situational ethics, rather in “Aspirational Ethics”. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus tells his disciples, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”, making reference to fulfilling the Laws spiritual intent. Just as it not enough to fulfill the letter of God’s Law, the same is true with regards to ethical decisions. Aspirational ethics is described as the highest standards of thinking and conduct to seek (Corey, Corey & Callanan 2007 p.13).

A Culture without Submission
There are consequences of breaking the law, rather it be natural law of Gods’ law. Ignorance to a law does not repudiate this fact. Societies disregard for God’s authoritative law, found in His Holy Commandments has resulted in an ever increasing disregard for natural law, the results of which can be seen throughout the world. The Holy Spirit convicts believers to satisfy the foundational principles that determine the decisions he or she will make. In the Book of John, Jesus tells His disciples “when he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me. It was clear Jesus was referring to the Holy Spirits work to convict those who transgress in the law. The Psalmist writes “My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness”.
The first law ever broken by man has created a ripple effect upon the world in which we live in, thus creating an environment of conflict. Adam and Eve taking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil introduced to them and to the world, knowledge from many sources. This resulted in somewhat of a foretaste of multiculturalism-knowledge from a variety of sources without God’s spiritual direction. II Thessalonians warns us to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”.
God has traditions that He wants us to adhere to that are in conflict with the traditions the world has been subjected to. II Thessalonians argues “but we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us”. God holds traditions, culture and autonomy; the difference in His versus mans are His are always right, always true and always work.

The Origins of Church in a Cultural Crisis
The origins of culture can be traced back to the church, thus cultures dissension begins with the church. “The religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market because it is now evident that homo religious, man in search of transcendent meaning, is irrepressible” (Neuhaus, 2007 p.2). The secularization theories of the eighteenth century assumed the ever increasing Enlightenment rationalism-which fueled progress of modernity-would result in increased skepticism of religion, thus gradually withering away or confining religions cultural influence.

While religion is clearly not withering away, it has become fragmented into several denominations as it’s expansive cross cultural expansion appears to have tainted its original culture. Religion now appears “impotent and quite prosperously happy in its impotence…Christianity in America is not challenging the hearts and habits of the mind that dominate American culture (Neuhaus 2007 p 3). On the contrary, some of the more affluent forms of Christianity exploit these habits thus reinforcing such behavior. Preachers of the “gospel” have reduced their sermons to motivational speaking, self-esteem pep rally events that focus on prosperity and happy feel good sermons. Such teaching was forecasted in God word as Isaiah 30:10 read “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits”. This leaves one to believe struggles and discontent with the trials of life is a sickness and self-examination that results in disheartening life discoveries is dangerous behavior.

The consumer spirit has developed a large assortment of Christian books, music and entertainment that has been misconstrued as worship, creating an illusion of living in an effervescent Christian subculture that is, in reality, a mirrored image of the “habits of heart and mind that its participants think they are challenging-or at least escaping. As everything goes better with Coke, so everything goes better with Jesus, and if that doesn’t work, there is always Prozac” (Neuhaus 2007 p 3).

Consequences of a Culturally Crisis Society
The breakdown of the American culture has resulted in erroneous tolerant behavior and moral views that have serious consequences. A number of social and cultural influences impact on the incidence of violence. The persistent exposure to popular media, such as television, movies, computer games and music has subjected youth to everyday violence. There has been a dramatic increase in the depiction of violence in video games. These images contribute to the desensitization of individuals to actual violence versus unrealistic possibilities of violence video games depict in having “extra lives”.

Role models approved by members of the community are often those seen in the media or promoted through popular culture. Many of these “role models” promote behaviors that are violent and rebellious. Frequently popular sports figures and celebrities receive negative media attention and publicity in relation to violent behavior and alcohol and drug use and abuse.

An example of the erroneous tolerance our culture has embraced can be described in a movie I recently viewed entitled “Juno”. This movie received much attention and tremendous reviews. The movie seems to poke fun at the seriousness of teen pregnancy as if it is socially acceptable. This is attributed to the fact that society sees it more important to look for the positives in teen pregnancy and accept the fact that teens will have sex and as such should “encourage” them to practice “safe sex” etc. the results of our tolerance of teen sexual activity is of major concern. Multimedia Apologetics report the following. An estimated 15 million STD infections occur each year, two-thirds of which are individuals under age twenty five. In 1960 only two major STD’s were of concern, those being syphilis and gonorrhea, both of which when treatable with penicillin. Today there are more than twenty five major STD’s, many of which are viral with no known cure.

Consequences of a Culturally Crisis Society
Our culture is progressively losing a strong sense of morality. The reestablishment of morality must begin at an early age. Moral development can be described as a progressive understanding of what one deems right or wrong. Developmentalists have concentrated their immediate attention upon moral development based upon children’s rationale of morality and the behaviors exhibited when faced with moral dilemma. The underlying influence that affects behavior is found in Ephesians 6:12 which states “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”.

The Bible declares that “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth”. This was evident in Adam and Eve’s disregard for Gods command not to take from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This act was rooted and grounded in a sense of pride and selfishness, orchestrated by Satan (the father of pride) and continues to impact our children at some point, to this day. The Bible asserts that “wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience”. From this perspective I agree, in part, with Gilligan’s “stage one” which contends initial attention is given to what is convenient and most important for self. Gilligan goes on to describe that the transition from selfishness to responsibility is gradual. I believe, however that transition into this stage is dependent upon environmental factors and that, given the lack of positive environmental conditions, that regression is a possible scenario.

Borrowing from the social learning approaches of moral development is what I believe is the basis for determining progress in the previously mentioned transitional stage. It is at this point where a child’s sense of morality is impacted and/or shaped by positive reinforcement and environmental influences, which requires the aid of any and every person who has the child’s best interest in mind.

References
Erickson, F. (2002). Culture and human development. Human Development, 45, 299-306
Lonner, W.J. (1984). Differing views on culture. Journal of cross cultural psychology 15, 107-109,
Erez, M. & Earley, P.C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of applied psychology, 72, 658-665
Schein, E.H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies. Administrative science quarterly, 44, 229-240
Cooper, R. (2001). A matter of culture. Cultural values, 5, 163-397
Touraine, A. (1998). Culture without society. Cultural values, 2, 140-145
Feldmen, R.S., (2008). Development across the life span, (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Neuhaus, J. (2007). Christ without culture. First things, retrieved May 10, 2008 from:
www.firstthings.com
Schwarts, S.H. (1999). Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Apllied
psychology: An international review, 48, 23-47
Sackmann, S. (1997). Cultural complexity in organizations: Inherent contrast and contradictions
Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33,
1-39
Schwartz, S.H. & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human
values. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53, 550-562
Corey, G., Corey. S.M., & Callanan, P. (2007). Issues and ethics in the helping profession,
(7th ed) Belmont, CA: Thompson Higher Education
Multimedia Apologetics (2006) retrieved May 10, 2008 from: www.multimediaapologetics.com