Cultured Dynamics

Culture is something that has been opposed many times throughout human history. However, in the majority of cases, it prevails due to a good reputation for improving livelihoods or a lack of credibility in culture-critical ideas. This argument seems to be a battle between the two sides of a dichotomy: conservative vs. liberal; cutting edge vs. old school; proven vs. potential. But perhaps it is necessary to jolt the foundations of the formation of culture in order to observe why it is trusted the way it is and why it leads to the kind of stubbornness we witness everyday in people.

What is culture? Culture is a conglomeration of ideas, attitudes, and customs embraced by a people that has proven to deliver a solid, dependable way to accomplish goals. For a corporation, a culture helps establish norms and deliver good performance. For a family, it may help keep its members on a predictable path to a successful life. For a nation, it can be something that unites its citizens on a grand scale to accomplish larger-than life tasks (a large public works project or a war effort).

It is obvious why culture is important and why it is supported by so many. It tells you how to eat to live longer, how to treat your spouse for a good marriage, how to dress for respect, and how to treat people outside the culture for a sense of class. It does so much more.

But is it really omnipotent and timeless? How did this culture stuff come about? Was it developed by a group of wise men? Was it derived from the countless real-life trial-and-error existences of many families in historic times? Is it exactly the same as it always was? These questions lead to the idea that culture was something that evolved in Darwinian fashion. Culture changed and improved as it reacted to various stimuli throughout the ages.

Culture that changes? That seems to go against what many stubborn, culture-devoted individuals would have you believe. Culture has been around forever and is always the same. It must be followed precisely or else you will fail. This is a common sentiment echoed around the world, isn't it?

Well, if these stubborn ideas are the governing rules of culture, then would not this call for culture to be something that existed before time itself existed? something that has no beginning and was always perfectly flawless? Did God Himself invent culture? Chances are that these stubborn guidelines essentially deem culture's existence impossible.

Therefore, in order for culture to even exist, it must have been developed well after time began and has experienced many, many changes. It had to have a definite beginning. The culture came into existence only because people tried to succeed at their lives in many ways and found this to be the best way or the one way that worked. Thus, culture is something that at one time was new and innovative. But then what happened in our time or the time of generations that came after the culture took full root? Has it stopped evolving? Have the stimuli disappeared? I think not. Evolution never stops. It's just that the stimuli, being the settings and circumstances to which the culture is subject, may vary more quickly than evolution can respond. And this is where cultural incompatibility, intolerance, and obsolescence come into play. This is when the culture loses touch with reality and only exists to restrict an individual from being successful; when mindless customs, traditions, and rituals constantly interfere with life.

Which cultures could these be? It should not be too hard to use a bit of common sense to distinguish these from those that do not block the road. Now it may be tempting to use this as justification to take-down all culture, but again, common sense and reason must be employed. This is not a call to uproot all culture. Rather, this is a call for those stubborn individuals who cling far too tightly and blindly onto stagnating cultures to loosen their grips and open their eyes. As the world changes, so too must culture. Things can't be forced to remain as they've always been or else those things would not be in the state they are in now. There is always a point in the past at which even the most strict culture had to be born and had to change a bit to suit the needs of its followers. It is wrong to restrict the natural evolution of something that guides our own natural social evolution.