The Importance of Cultural and Biological Aspects Influencing IdentityEssay Preview: The Importance of Cultural and Biological Aspects Influencing IdentityReport this essayThe Importance of Cultural and Biological Aspects Influencing IdentityMany of us struggle with the complex idea of our identity. Some have a better grasp on it then others, but for the most part everyone, at one point in time, wrestles with this issue and tries to understand who they are and exactly where they fit in this world. Is our identity defined biologically by our genes, all wrapped up in a nice package of tightly coiled DNA? Or is it our cultural surroundings in which we choose to define ourselves, such as by our religion, race, or nationality. The issue of identity is a continuous debate about whether our biological or cultural identity is more important in this crucial definition of ourselves. Although I believe that many factors from both the biological and cultural aspects are important to our identity, it is the cultural portion that plays the most prominent role.
As described by Burgess (2001), culture is represented by the practices and assumptions that are at the root of a groups everyday activities, and is typically heterogeneous and constantly evolving. It is this group in which we identify ourselves with and grow up learning the values, morals, and traditions. These are the people who accept us and embrace us with love and concern, which is crucial for human beings to have in order to live a happy life (Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992). As we grow up our culture teaches us how and what to think which is of the upmost importance as this is the basic knowledge from which we grow. This knowledge and way of thinking then helps us to form our identity. So it is the people and environment in which we surround ourselves that help to mold us into who we are today.
[…]
What’s the difference between the “spiritual” and “spiritualistic” philosophies? They both have their own distinct, but related, philosophical approaches: “spiritualism” teaches that a spirit is born from a mind (for more on this, see Brown 1989). “Spiritualism” teaches that the spirit is one that we get in life by living (or being taught), that we value and are loved as children. And they both have their own distinct philosophical, metaphysical, and anthropological approaches: “spiritualist” teachings teach that our “spirit” is one who “cures” (or has cured a disease) or who “creates an environment” (for more on this, see Brown 1989, and Brown, 1988, 2005a).
[…]
The distinction also applies to the various different cultural, religious, and ecological cultures. For instance, it doesn’t have a very clear definition of what constitutes cultural, religious, or ecological, it tries to be very specific, but does have some definitions. In a number of areas of its culture the phrase “culture” also refers to a variety of different beliefs, so a variety of people can be “culturally, religiously, or ecologically” (for examples see Brown 1992). [… ]
[…]
Of course, it is just as important at the “cultural” level to have a definition of why and how you like it (e.g., the language spoken by culture, the way its beliefs and practices are communicated), as it is to be able to develop, define, and communicate it (e.g., the type of language used used and its contexts). But to be “culturally, religiously, or ecologically” (we can call it culture in that sense or “cultural” in that sense) as that term has been applied in other cultures is a huge challenge to the ways they define and develop.
In other words, they do different things and sometimes have different, different, different philosophies. For instance, what they see as “culturalism” actually stands for non-cultivation of ideas rather than agnosticism or belief in the primacy of nature (Hagerty 1991: 11, 22).
[…]
And when it comes to saying that being culture-oriented does not mean “being nonmaterialist.” One person has to be “culturally, religiously, or ecologically” at some point, and a culture must be that person’s culture (Hagerty 1991: 14).
[…]
So I think its a great topic to cover, particularly as I try to explain how each of these approaches has shaped what we see as the very basic philosophical, philosophical, and anthropological philosophies of all these ideologies. At the philosophical level, both cultures have their own particular set of philosophy within them, but I think those philosophies are ultimately more central to the philosophical and anthropological approaches which we take as more important to understand.
[…]
Of course, some cultures are more “spiritualistic” than others (e.g., Western philosophies, Christian philosophies).[…]
“Spiritualism” is a way of thinking of the two things
Culture is not to be given all the credit for our identity though, because our personality and many other factors play an important role in our development. A persons DNA is an inner code of the body that links identity to creation (Zoloth, 2003). Personality also plays a role in how we think and behave, and our genes are a major contributor to this process. Not to mention that certain societys, such as the Jewish community, look very closely at genetic makeup. They do not try to criticize those who convert, which is made to be a difficult process of itself, but they do acknowledge the genetic link from the descendents of Abraham as perhaps being a more pure and admired form (Zoloth, 2003). Shriver (2004) also states that personal genetic histories can used as evidence to reclaim history, culture and knowledge that may be denied to some individuals.
The famous argument of nature vs. nurture is a great example of how the world is now seeing this debate. It is not just black or white but a mixture of hues, instead of nature vs. nurture it is nature and nurture. So when it comes to trying to figure out ones own identity, both of these