[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.TLFeBOOK344 ADAMS AND MARKUSKashima (2000) aptly noted that scholars who discuss the mutual consti-tution process typically have more to say about the cultural grounding sideof the dialectic ( culture shapes psyche ) than the dynamic constructionside ( psyche shapes culture ).Earlier, we suggested one source of this lop-sided emphasis.Given the historical neglect of culture in the field of socialpsychology, the primary task of the  first wave of research has been tohighlight the cultural grounding of psychological functioning.Here we sug-gest another source of this lopsided emphasis.Discussion of the  flip sideof the mutual constitution dialectic the dynamic construction of culturalrealities has been hindered by an overly reified conception of culture.Given a conception of culture as group entity, discussion of the process bywhich  psyche creates culture requires an unlikely account of how an aggre-gation of individual, psychological activity generates a macrolevel system.The present approach to culture makes this task a more reasonable under-taking via two means.First, a conception of culture as flowing patternschanges the nature of the explanatory task.Rather than creation of culturalentities, one must explain the reproduction, maintenance, and modificationof cultural patterns.The phenomenon under consideration becomes the redi-rection of cultural flow rather than outright creation of that flow.Second, a conception of culture as patterns locates the unit of culture ata  micro level of analysis.From this perspective, research like that de-scribed in this volume (e.g., chapters in this volume by Arrow & Burns,Harton & Bourgeois, Lau et al., and McIntyre et al.) already qualifies as anaccount of the dynamic construction of cultural reality.Although an inter-esting topic for research, it is not necessary to extend such accounts frommicrolevel patterns to macrolevel  cultures before one can refer to theprocess as  cultural.Contrasting ImplicationsSome aspects of the preceding discussion may appear to suggest that thedistinction between entity and patterns approaches to culture is primarily adifference in degree rather than a difference in kind.Perhaps cultural pat-terns and cultural groups are both forms of cultural entities, but differ inlevel (micro vs.macro), degree of boundedness (diffuse and flowing vs.contained or fixed), or perceived entitativity (low vs.high).If so, it may bepossible to reconcile the two conceptions.That is, if one relaxes the unit ofculture to include not only high-entitativity groups (e.g., citizens of a partic-ular nation), but also low-entitativity sets (e.g., people who have attendedcollege), then perhaps an entity conception of culture can accommodatethe patterns conception.Such a move to extend the concept of culture from bounded, fixed,macrolevel groups to diffuse, flowing, microlevel patterns is certainly con-TLFeBOOK14.TOWARD A SUITABLE CONCEPTION OF CULTURE 345sistent with the spirit of this chapter.However, the difference between aconception of culture as patterns and the more typical conception of cul-ture as group is more than a difference in perceived entitativity.In addition,these two conceptions also differ in their conception of cultural involve-ment.A conception of culture as group implies a framing of cultural involve-ment as membership; that is, the influence of culture happens by being amember of the associated cultural group.In contrast, a conception of cul-ture as patterns emphasizes that one need not be a member of some cul-tural group (e.g.,  mainstream Americans ) to engage and be shaped by cul-tural patterns (e.g., those associated with mainstream American settings).This is partly a statement about perceived entitativity and the extent towhich cultural engagement is conscious and explicit.For example, oneneed not consider oneself a member of a group of city dwellers to beshaped by patterns that arise as a byproduct of being a city-dweller.Onecan be shaped by this  group experience, even if one did not think aboutthe experience in group membership terms.More important, though, this statement entails a recognition that onecan be shaped by cultural patterns associated with entities in which onehas never been, is not now, nor ever will be a member.For example, con-sider the cultural force of Protestantism.Although an entity conception ofculture would seem to limit Protestantism s influence to members of aProtestant group, the more pervasive and enduring source of Protestant-ism s power is as a cultural pattern.It is an often implicit, unrecognized partof the institutions, practices, and artifacts that constitute everyday realityin widely scattered cultural settings.For example, the legacy of Protestant-ism persists in contemporary, mainstream American settings in the ideathat success is the result of self-discipline and hard work, in the relation-ship of control feelings and internal attributions to happiness and well-being, or in the relationship of self-control ideology to the association of fatwith immoral (Crandall, 1994; Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Kluegel & Smith, 1986;Lachman & Weaver, 1998).Regardless of personal identity, people in main-stream American settings necessarily encounter this cultural legacy in thecourse of everyday activity.People in these settings can fervently embracecultural patterns associated with other religious affiliations (e.g., Judaism,Catholicism, etc [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]