On the Subtle Differences Between Identity and Culture

On the Subtle Differences between a Person’s Identity and his Societies’ Culture


You cannot keep a culture private, individual, or traditional without first betraying society’s most important needs (in terms of advancement and survival (long term)): ingenuity and diversity.

It is important to remember that culture does not form identity, but identity forms culture. Culture is collective and vast, and is built by the many people who populate it.

Music, art, literature, religion, science, the human web of ideas, the great pursuit of advancement, knowledge and perfection; these form culture. The greatest product of human culture is the ingenuity supplied to maintain our species survival, as has been the way since we first began to problem-solve.

Identity is individual, culture is world-wide.

There are things that confuse me, though, when I consider the effect of a culture on a person’s identity, and vice-versa. Mostly, it seems to be that an individual will assimilate their identities into a culture (thus creating culture), but, it would also seem, once an individual has immersed himself into a culture, he begins to assimilate the culture into his identity. (I am very purposely ignoring the concepts of a culture of brainwashed, paranoid, half-person-half-TV-watching-machine people that seem to flood our perspectives of our overall culture. I consider those who do not (or simply cannot) contribute to society to be un-assimilate-able into the human pursuit of advancement. Perhaps it’s best said, they are without culture, or, at best, with a very cheap mockery of it, displayed through TV, magazines (and perhaps gossip), instead of books, music and sophisticated curiosity.) When the individual has assimilated his mark of diversity into a culture, the culture and his identity become linked, and become each other (At this point, I wonder if that means a person has only one chance to assert his effect on culture before his identity is consumed and he loses his ability to be diverse. For that, well, I certainly hope not).

Ignoring all possibility of that last sentence, I believe that after this assimilation and contribution is when culture becomes the beautiful, remarkable, and powerful thing that it is. Culture is driven by the passion of its population, all contributing from different angles to form the amazing collage of life, love and respect. This is where the power of love is most gloriously displayed (I mean this in a John Lennon way, rather than an Elton John way).

To conclude, what I’ve decided now, after typing this, is that it is heritage, tradition, and most importantly, passion, that forms the individual and his pursuit; it is heritage, tradition, passion and love that draws him to his culture, and it is heritage, tradition, passion, love, and respect that keeps the culture continuous.

And if respect fails, then, it is simply fear of fading away that drives us to be as significant as possible.

Oooooh. Sociology! My favorite!

So, I was going to try to help you edit this, but instead of doing anything constructive I was mentally saying why you were wrong... haha. I just finished taking sociology, and I've basically been totally converted.

But, from this I gather you believe in nature rather than nurture? You do bring up several good points...but I still disagree for two specific reasons.

Primarily, I believe that culture creates identity. (Obviously this is where we diverge.) I think that there is some psychological (natural) basis to our personalities, but the majority of "who we are" comes from the environment and culture that we have been raised in.

And second, you say that ingenuity and diversity would not exist if culture creates identity. (At least I believe that is what you were saying...) But I think that is false. Culture is not uniform. Though, as, say, Americans we each experience similarities due to living under the rule of the same government, we cannot have entirely similar lives because of the differences in our families, friends, communities etc. Therefore, if culture is the creator of identity and we experience different parts of culture none of us can become the same and we are still different. You might ask then in argument which had come first culture or identity? I think this is the ultimate question...it's like which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is impossible to say, and therefore is a moot point.

Anyway! Sorry...I had my rant-face on. Again you make several good points! Perhaps you would write a more indepth essay about it?

Grammar Patrol

You cannot keep a culture private, individual, or traditional without first betraying society’s most important needs (in terms of advancement and long-term survival): ingenuity and diversity.

I moved that adjective from within the parentheses to before the word, because having a parentheses within another parentheses looks kind of awful and confusing, and because the adjective flowed better before the word.

The greatest product of human culture is the ingenuity supplied to maintain our species survival, as has been the way since we first began to problem solve.

Identity is individual. Culture is worldwide.

There are things that confuse me, though, when I consider the affect of a culture on a person’s identity, and vice versa.

There were some unnecessary hyphens here which I removed, and I added a period to the middle quote because they were two independent clauses which either needed to be separate sentences or joined with a conjuction and a comma, and on the last sentence I changed effect to affect accordingly.

(I am very purposely ignoring the concepts of a culture of brainwashed, paranoid, half-person, half-TV-watching, machine people that seem to flood our perspectives of our overall culture. I consider those who do not--or simply cannot--contribute to society to be inassimilable into the human pursuit of advancement. Perhaps it’s best said: they are without culture, or, at best, with a very cheap mockery of it, displayed through TV, magazines--and perhaps gossip--, instead of books, music and sophisticated curiosity.)

I did a few things here. I cleared up the long string of adjectives and organized it better, because you were linking with hyphens some adjectives that were better off alone. I changed the parentheses within the parentheses to dashes for your interrupter, because, again, parentheses within parentheses = not pleasant to look at.

When the individual has assimilated his mark of diversity into a culture, the culture and his identity become linked, and become each other. (At this point, I wonder if that means a person has only one chance to assert his effect on culture before his identity is consumed and he loses his ability to be diverse. For that, well, I certainly hope not).

This is where the power of love is most gloriously displayed. (I mean this in a John Lennon way, rather than an Elton John way).

You still need periods at the ends of sentences even if the sentence following it is in parentheses.

[s]To conclude, what I’ve decided now, after typing this, is that [/s]It is heritage, tradition, and most importantly, passion, that forms the individual and his pursuit. It is heritage, tradition, passion and love that draws him to his culture, and it is heritage, tradition, passion, love, and respect that keeps the culture continuous.

It was a separate sentence, so I put a period instead of a semicolon. The thing at the beginning is a bit superfluous, and doesn't roll off of the tongue kindly. I suggest removing it, namely because of the reference to yourself typing the essay. It suggests that you didn't fully understand what you were actually writing about until you finished. It may be true, but we don't have to admit that.

And if respect fails, [s]then,[/s] it is simply fear of fading away that drives us to be as significant as possible.

Either remove the word "then" or the comma following it.

This was a very insightful essay which shed light on an interesting topic. I appluad you. It is an effort well-done, becase it intelligently tackles a very difficult and abstract subject. The only suggestion I have other than things grammatical, is that you perhaps would be better off defining culture and identity fully on their own. You've suggested some of the things that they are, and some of the things that they are not, but not the very essence of their nature with a straightforward definition. If you believe they are too abstract to provide a simple definition for, then elaborate on that instead. The differences and subtleties you outline were very effectively noted. I just would have liked a more solid foundation.

Excellent job on the whole, though!