The distinctions between that which we present to the internet, that which we hold to ourselves, and that which we present/express in other settings are guided by different parameters of attention, presence of mind, and presumably unconscious forms of behavioural habit all of which is unified by some form of singularity we understand and identify as ourselves.
In other words, different attitudes are taken to participate and act in the various "realities" we have access to. What is presented ultimately shape the impressions we give to others who (un)intentionally become audiences. This burdens our expressions and forms of action with a degree of responsibility that is correlated with the various degrees of gravity in various contexts - we can take some things seriously and others not seriously. Such degrees of responsibility attached to actions are not always considered and unwittingly impressions are given without intentionally making them out to be as such. In other words, we do not always take into account the responsibility attached to actions and this makes for chaotic relations. One's perceived identity may not coincide with another's idea of you - and perhaps one question is one of relevance: does it matter?
Beliefs have often been claimed to be dispositional and the dispositions we create for ourselves are in one sense a matter of preference and discrimination (based on whatever criteria we have come to understand as our affinity for things). In another sense, complementary to our preferences just mentioned, there are the perception of things (guided/limited by attention) that perpetuate and formulate new dispositions. Beliefs are both perpetuated and created as we navigate the world. What we accept - without committing to its "truth claim" - are then supplementary which either contribute to such dispositions or abandoned in light of various forms of evidence. The subtlety within this dynamic is the emotional response which compose much of right or wrong and the derivations thereof. The magnitude by which we experience our emotions, moods, feelings, passions, or what have you, are subject to our own understanding of them which in effect guid what is accepted and unaccepted - what contributes with prior understanding and what does not contribute.
The discussion of morality and concepts of human nature is then not one of rational discourse, although we can certainly discuss it in that manner (contingent upon what one understands as "anthropology", "ontology", "biology", or "natural"), but the particularities fall within the realm of experience and how things are nurtured - which also falls within how one understands the categories just mentioned in the parentheses. We can talk about an animal's nature but those who have raised dogs understand that a "well-behaved" dog is owed much to the training it has received, i.e. experience. The constructed system ultimately influences the perspective and attitudes one takes. Perhaps in this sense, the interest one has in a social-political-economic system is an interest in human nature.
It becomes implausible to separate nature from the impresses of culture. The recent study about brain connectivity does not show fundamental differences between men and women but rather reflects how society influences the minds/brains of men and women. The study finds that the differences begin to emerge most during the time of puberty when gender differences and socialization is reaching another stage of awareness. Adolescents are conscious of what their peers are doing and what they think. Values and norms become "normalized" and the differences in brain connectivity would naturally reflect the differences spheres of influence carved out for males and females. This is also to say that different cultures will influence brain connectivity in different ways as well. Many cross-cultural studies in psychology have reflected this - talking about cultural psychological differences between "East" and "West". Joel Cooper has found differences in what he has called "vicarious dissonance" and many will talk about "relational" psychology with respect to the "east". This difference has been typified in studies that simply look at "I am ..." research where persons from the east and persons from the west will complete that sentence in different ways.
In my view, all of this relates to the intersections of anthropology and psychology - namely the interface between collective and individual or culture and nature. The type of society and world that we make will ultimately depend on the degree of interest a collective (and its representative forms of power) takes in how it wishes to shape the culture that will influence the nature of persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment