Holism And Culture Essay, Research Paper

Holism is the belief that moral characteristics of an individual are entirely determined by the social and cultural group of which they are members. Holism is based on the notion that the self is merely a “vehicle by which society and culture express themselves” (Fay, 50). The theory suggests that since moral principles vary from culture to culture, we must suspend judgement of individuals because they are not responsible for their own beliefs. Brian Fay refutes the holistic assumption and argues that “no cultural entity or social group is so fixed?that we can be a reflection of it” (Fay, 68). I will argue that although the holistic approach to life is incorrect, one’s culture, as well as many external factors, influence but not dictate the beliefs and morals of individuals.

Culture consists of the beliefs, behavior, language, and entire way of life of a particular group of people. Language, a component of culture, is the manner in which human beings communicate with one another. “Our language provides the resources on the basis of which we assert, question, demand, and judge” (Fay, 55). Therefore, if culture falls under the classification of holistic, then language does as well. Just like culture, language is open to interpretation. “In the process of learning language we affirm parts of it and reject others?and create new form” (Fay, 55). This assertion becomes obvious when one looks at English phrases commonly used during the 1960’s compared to commonly used sayings of the current era. During the 60’s, if one wished to imply that something was favorable, he would say, “Man, that’s groovy. I dig it!” However, if a member of the 90’s culture wishes to portray a proclivity towards something, he would exclaim, “That’s phat. It’s ‘da’ bomb.” A mere 30 years ago, this phrase would have had an entirely different and even negative connotation. Speaking is not a process of memorizing or mimicking terms, and it is not the mere regurgitation of a set number of words and phrases handed down generation to generation. Contrary to the principles of holism, the ability of each generation to take language as a whole and adapt it to individual ideals is what makes each person responsible for his own comments and assertions.

Rather than being holistic, cultures are open entities that are continually susceptible to outside influence. According to Fay, “wherever exchange among humans occurs, the possibility exists of the influence of one culture by another.” This conglomerate theory is best explained by the American term, “melting pot.” The “melting pot” is the image of the United States as a factory that combines different metals, represented by immigrants from various countries, into a new metal, Americans. This suggests that Americans are not necessarily those from America, and that different cultures and backgrounds have combined to form the American. New York City has been called the central melting pot of the United States. Within its five boroughs, there exists Chinatown, Little Italy, Hell’s Kitchen, and many other developments where members of different cultures dwell. These distinct areas of New York influence the entire city in terms of food, art, culture, and language, which exemplify the greater “melting pot” of different ideals and morals.

A result of New York City’s multi-cultural society is the development of totally different languages that combine former native languages with modern American languages. The creation of “Spanglish,” the combination of Modern English and Latin American Spanish, has defined the vast amount of Latinos living in New York City. English words, like “turn” have been transformed into Spanglish by adding an “o” sound to the end of the word to form “turno.” What in Spanish used to be “A ti te toca” to indicate, “it’s your turn,” is now, “Es tu turno.” Spanglish is a prime example of how two cultures, one English speaking culture, and one Spanish speaking culture, have combined to form one larger society that is completely dependant on outside influences for its survival.

Another example of a culture’s ability to take different aspects from different external influences was the African American creation of jazz music. Jazz is rooted in the mingled musical traditions of American blacks, which include traits surviving from West African music, black folk music forms developed in the New World, European popular and light classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries, and later popular music produced by black composers. Each culture passed down its musical creations for subsequent generations to alter it to best fit the changing times. Holism does not apply to the creation of African American music, and, as Fay points out, “the human world is not composed of?independent cultures; rather, it is one of constant interplay and exchange” (Fay, 59).

Judaism provides an example of how different ideas and morals can develop through different interpretations of a specific culture’s doctrines. The Torah is the scripture that governs Jewish morals and beliefs. It demands that all Jews keep a Kosher diet under all circumstances. However, modern-day Judaism is broken down into four distinct sects: Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist. All but one of these sects still believes that in order to be a “real” Jew, one must keep Kosher. This implies that somewhere along the timeline of Jewish history, a group of Jews broke off and developed a distinct code of beliefs, based on the Torah, but not confined to the Torah. Separations such as these are only possible because individuals posses the ability to absorb rules and doctrines of their specific cultures, and interpret these rules to best fit their own ideals. In accordance with this view, Fay states that “any culture complex enough to warrant the name will consist of conflicting beliefs and rules which offer mixed, contested, and ambiguous messages to its followers” (Fay, 57).

However, societal rules influence interactions between members of the same culture. In order to support the holistic principle, it must be implied that the members of each society interact and exchange thoughts, but the thoughts are all similar and are mere reiterations of social norms. The social leaders dictate the norms of the society, and in return, the “underlings” of the society act accordingly. Under these circumstances “no fundamental difference exists between a heating system?and a social system?they are all structures organized around informational flows whose outcome is the maintenance of certain relationships among its various parts and with its environment” (Fay, 63). However, it is wrong to assume that a social system is equivalent to a heating system. Simple heating systems consist of a thermostat and a heater. The thermostat measures the room temperature and stimulates a heating mechanism when the temperature falls to a certain point. There is no other means of interaction between the thermostat and the heater besides this one measurement. Societies, on the other hand, consist of rules and roles that govern ways of thinking, but the actual agents of the society are able to “perceive their situation, reason about it, form motives, knowingly act on the basis of this reasoning, and reflexively monitor their action to see whether it produced the desired result.” (Fay, 64) Unlike a heating system, the social system involves many different interactions that require judgement calls. Thermostats are unable to interpret data and form different outcomes; cold temperatures mean heat on, and hot temperatures mean heat off. It would be extremely simplistic to suggest that heating systems engage in the same type of reasoning and interpretation that members of societies engage in.

The structure of societal interactions, although governed by accepted rules, requires the interpretation of its members in order to make its specific structure known. Society is not merely an umbrella organization that governs the everyday lives of its members. Rather, the structure of society provides the rules for possible interaction between its members, “but it is agents who produce and reproduce this structure by means of their activity” (Fay, 65). Rather than dictating exactly what must occur, social structures engage its members in thought and interpretation. “Actions are only possible because they are enabled by certain social structures [, but] social structures require intelligent agents to be realized” (Fay, 65).

Therefore, society is not a structure but an open process controlled by rules of interaction. Society can best be described by a 9-inning baseball game. Baseball games have rules that control play: 3 strikes your out, for example. However, unlike the holistic approach, games vary based on external factors. Imagine that during the course of a game it suddenly begins to rain. One team’s manager, say Bobby Valentine of the New York Mets, might replace the current pitcher with another pitcher who statistically performs better in poor weather conditions. Here, Valentine has acted within the rules that govern baseball games, but he has interpreted external factors that affect the game in order to best suit his own needs. If during the same game Valentine receives word that the Mets no longer maintain sole possession of first place, he is likely to put his strongest defenders into the field and change his hitting strategy so that he is guaranteed to win the game and regain the position. “Society is just the dynamic working through of rule and role-governed patterns of interaction among agents whose identity and relative position change constantly partly on the basis of the way these agents interpret the rules and roles” (Fay, 65). Society, like baseball games, are open to interpretation, but are simultaneously governed by obvious rules of interaction.

In conclusion, holism is wrong because it assumes that members of individual cultures share the same morals and beliefs. Interactions between different cultures allow a variety of different beliefs and ideals to be absorbed into the minds of each individual for personal interpretation. Therefore, members of different cultures are responsible for their own moral beliefs because no culture is secluded or powerful enough to entirely rule one’s every though. To some extent, culture and society do make us who we are, but because we have the ability to learn and interpret, we create our own personalities and ideals. Every human being has the ability to interpret all ideas from a variety of different cultures, and so, individual actions cannot be blamed on the teachings and practices of one culture, and judgment must not be withheld when surveying the actions of members of other cultures.