Nevertheless, preserving cultural identify cannot be the only purpose of ritual and ceremony.
Otherwise, how would one explain why isolated cultures that don’t need to distinguish
themselves to preserve their identity nevertheless engage in their own distinct rituals and
ceremonies? In fact, the initial purpose of ritual and ceremony is rooted not in cultural identity
but rather superstition and spiritual belief. The original purpose of a ritual might have been to
frighten away evil spirits, to bring about weather conditions favorable to bountiful harvests, or
to entreat the gods for a successful hunt or for victory in battle. Even today some primitive
cultures engage in rituals primarily for such reasons.
Nor are ritual and ceremony the only means of preserving cultural identity. For example, our
115
Amish culture demonstrates its distinctiveness through dress and life-style. Hasidic Jews set
themselves apart by their dress, vocational choices, and dietary habits. And African-Americans
distinguish themselves today by their manner of speech and gesture. Of course, these
subcultures have their own distinct ways of cerebrating events such as weddings, coming of
age, and so forth. Yet ritual and ceremony are not the primary means by which these
subcultures maintain their identity.
In sum, to prevent total cultural assimilation into our modern-day homogenous soup, a
subculture with a unique and proud heritage must maintain an outward display of that
heritage--by way of ritual and ceremony. Nevertheless, ritual and ceremony serve a spiritual
function as well--one that has little to do with preventing cultural assimilation. Moreover, rituals
and ceremonies are not the only means of preserving cultural identity.
Issue 105
"The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much
about a society’s ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."
This statement generalizes unfairly that the way people look, dress, and act reveals their
attitudes and their society’s values. In my view, while in certain respects the habits and
customs of a people are accurate indicators of their attitudes and values, in other respects
they are not.Turning first to the way people look and dress, certain aspects of the outward appearance of
a culture’s people do inform us of their ideas, attitudes, and values. A society whose members
tend to be obese might place a high value on indulgence and pleasure, and a low value on
physical health. A general preference for ready-made, inexpensive clothing might indicate a
preference for practicality or for saving rather than spending. And, a society whose members
prefer to wear clothing that is traditional and distinct to that society is one that values tradition
over modernization. In other respects, however, the way people look and dress is not a
function of their attitudes and values but rather their climatic and work environment. In harsh
climates people bundle up, while in hot, humid climates they go with few clothes. In developed
nations people dress for indoor work and their skin appears pink and supple, while in agrarian
cultures people dress for outdoor work and appear weather-beaten.
I turn next to the way people act. The habits, rituals and lifestyles of a culture often do
provide accurate signals about its values. For instance, a society characterized by
over-consumption is clearly one that values comfort and convenience over a healthy
environment. And, a society whose members behave in a genteel, respectful, and courteous
manner toward one another is one which values human dignity, while a society of people who
act in a hateful manner toward others clearly places a low value on respect for others and on
tolerance of other people’s opinions and beliefs. In other respects, however, the way people
behave can belie their attitudes and values. For instance, a society whose members tend to
work long hours might appear to place a high value on work for its own sake, when in reality
these work habits might be born of financial necessity for these people, who would prefer more
leisure time if they could afford it.
Finally, the statement overlooks a crucial distinction between free societies and oppressed
ones. Free societies, such as contemporary America, are characterized by a panoply of rituals,
116
behaviors, and manners of dress among its members. Such diversity in appearances surely
indicates a society that places a high value on individual freedoms and cultural diversity.
Accordingly, it might seem that a society whose members share similar rituals, ways of
dressing, and public behaviors places a low value on individual freedoms and cultural diversity.
However, any student of modern Communism and Fascism would recognize cultural
homogeneity as an imposition on society’s members, who would happily display their
preference for individuality and diversity but for their oppressors.
To sum up, while the statement has merit, it amounts to an unfair generalization. The way
that people look, dress, and act is often bred of necessity, not of attitude or values. And in
oppressed societies people’s customs and habits belie their true attitudes and values in any
event.Issue 106
"Progress is best made through discussion among people who have contrasting points of
view."
The speaker contends that progress is best made through discourse among people with
opposing opinions and viewpoints. I strongly agree with this contention. In all realms of human
endeavor, including the behavioral and natural sciences as well as government and law,
debate and disagreement form the foundation for progress.
Regarding the physical sciences, our scientific method is essentially a call for progress
through opposition. Any new theory must withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the
history of theoretical science is essentially a history of opposing theories. A current example
involves two contrary theories of physics: wave theory and quantum theory. During the last 20
years or so scientists have been struggling to disprove one or the other, or to reconcile them.
By way of this intense debate, theorists have developed a new so-called "string" theory which
indeed reconciles them--at least mathematically. Although "strings" have yet to be confirmed
empirically, string theory might turn out to provide the unifying laws that all matter in the
universe obeys.
The importance of opposing theories is not limited to the purely physical sciences.
Researchers interested in human behavior have for some time been embroiled in the so-called
"nature-nurture" debate, which involves whether behavioral traits are a function of genetic
disposition and brain chemistry ("nature") or of learning and environment ("nurture"). Not
surprisingly, psychologists and psychiatrists have traditionally adopted sharply opposing
stances in this debate. And it is this very debate that has sparked researchers to discover that
many behavioral traits are largely a function of the unique neurological structure of each
individual’s brain, and not a function of nurture. These and further discoveries certainly will
lead to progress in dealing effectively with pressing social issues in the felds of education,
juvenile delinquency, criminal reform, and mental illness. The outcomes of the debate also
carry important implications about culpability and accountability in the eyes of the law. In short,
the nature-nurture debate will continue to serve as a catalyst for progress across the entire
social spectrum.
The value of discourse between people with opposing viewpoints is not limited to the
physical and behavioral sciences. In government and politics, progress in human rights comes
117
typically through dissension from and challenges to the status quo; in fact, without
disagreement among factions with opposing viewpoints, political oppression and tyranny
would go unchecked. Similarly, in the fields of civil and criminal law, jurists and legislators who
uphold and defend legal precedent must face continual opposition from those who question
the fairness and relevance of current laws. This ongoing debate is critical to the vitality and
relevance of our system of laws.