Why Am I Not Just Lovin’ Cultural Neuroscience? Toward a Slow Science of Cultural Difference (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Research in Personality, 2003
This paper deals with psychological differences between two cultures, with respect to the differences between individuals in those same cultures. Five principles are presented which describe either actual or probable empirical relationships between within-and between-culture differences, and a possible theoretical account is given for each of the presumed differences. (1) The differences between ''cultures'' seem ''bigger'' than the actual differences between the individuals in these same cultures. This relation is attributed to the idea that universal human biological predispositions are often opposed by cultural traditions, so the outcome is somewhat of a compromise between the two. (2) Differences between individuals in different cultures are generally larger in behavior than in thoughts or feelings This is attributed to the fact that it is easier to socialize behavior than mental events. (3) Many cultural differences are expressed in individuals in terms of different default responses or interpretations or preferences for the same situation. Dominant responses in one culture are usually a less salient part of the repertoire of individuals in another culture. (4) Much of the effect of culture, and our impression of culture differences, results from the physical/social artifacts (environments, institutions) created by the culture. There is a strong tendency by psychologists to underrate or ignore the effects of the physical environment. (5) In the contemporary world, differences between individuals in two cultures will be larger in older generations. Cultural differences may be markedly reduced in the most recent generations, on account of globalization. The position put forth is an attempt to integrate the ideas that there are real human predispositions of various sorts and that culture is a powerful force, and to explain why it is surprisingly easy for us to understand the viewpoint of people from other cultures (their ''reality''is often a less preferred alternative in our own repertoire).
Cultural variation: Considerations and implications
Psychological Bulletin, 2001
Cultural systems vary widely across the world. Partly this is due to different cultures' occupying different ecological and environmental niches. But partly it is due to similar circumstances giving rise to multiple stable equilibriums, each with a distinct cultural form. Using insights and examples from various fields, this article illustrates the way that multiple equilibriums can emerge and the forces that push a culture toward one equilibrium point or another. Considerations of game theory principles, mutual interdependence, historical circumstance, dependence on initial conditions, and crucial choice points are highlighted in discussing the ways humans create and recreate their culture. Cultural traits develop within physical, social, intracultural, and intercultural niches, and implications of this for how culture might be studied and the benefits of combining an "equilibrium" perspective and a "meaning" perspective are discussed.
Editorial: Cultural Variation and Cognition
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2023
The idea that cognition might vary across cultural and linguistic groups is of course not new (see, e.g., Cole 1996). Famously, the linguists Edward Sapir, a student of Boas, and Benjamin Whorf, a student of Sapir, hypothesized that the syntactic structure of a language shapes speakers' thoughts (Sapir 1921; Whorf 1956), a hypothesis now known as the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis." As Whorf put it (1956, 212): The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face. On the contrary the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which have to be organized in our minds. This means, largely, by the linguistic system in our minds. It is notoriously unclear, and it has been long debated, what exactly Sapir and Whorf were asserting (e.g., Kay and Kempton 1984), but despite its vagueness it has inspired, and still inspires research in cognitive science (e.g.
How Culture Comes to Mind: From Social Affordances to Cultural Analogies
Intellectica, 2007
« L'anthropologie, même sociale, se proclame solidaire de l'anthropologie physique, dont elle guette les découvertes avec une sorte d'avidité. Car même si les phénomènes sociaux doivent être provisoirement isolés du reste et traités comme s'ils relevaient d'un niveau spécifique, nous savons bien qu'en fait et même en droit l'émergence de la culture restera pour l'homme un mystère tant qu'il ne parviendra pas à déterminer, au niveau biologique, les modifications de structure et de fonctionnement du cerveau, dont la culture a été simultanément le résultat naturel et le mode d'appréhension » Claude Lévi-Strauss, Leçon inaugurale au Collège de France, 1960 INTRODUCTION 1 For most anthropologists, culture covers different kinds of phenomena, ranging from habits to institutions. Culture, as Edward Tylor put it, "is a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (Tylor, 1958, p. 1). Far from the evolutionary definition of culture as well-adaptative information transmitted through nongenetic means among members of a group (Boesch & Tomasello, 1998), the anthropological view of culture sees variation as going beyond anything that might arise from the course of biological evolution (Carrithers, 1997, p. 99). Cultural anthropology, in particular, insists on the "superorganic" dimension of culture and on the complexity of representational, human-specific creations (i.e. myths, rituals, symbols). This being so, such emphasis on cultural variation as the main characteristic of socio-cultural phenomena is not shared by all anthropological perspectives (for a review, see Atran et al., 2005). Contrary to cultural anthropology, indeed, social anthropology, which dwells on the social dimensions of human groupings (i.e. kinship, political organization, economic exchange), tends to emphasize the organizational aspects of the socio-cultural phenomena that are recurrent-not to say universal-in any society.
Culture: by the brain and in the brain?
Since the 1990s, several disciplines have emerged at the interface between neuroscience and the social and human sciences. For the most part, they aim at capturing the commonalities that underlay the heterogeneity of human behaviors and experiences. Neuroanthropology and cultural neuroscience, or the “neurodisciplines of culture,” appear different, since their goal is to understand specificity rather than commonality and to address how cultural differences are inscribed in the brain. After offering an overview of these disciplines, and of their relation to endeavors such as cultural psychology and social neuroscience, this article discusses some of the most representative studies in the area in order to explore in which ways they are relevant for an understanding of culture.
Culture and neuroscience: additive or synergistic?
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2010
The investigation of cultural phenomena using neuroscientific methodscultural neuroscience (CN)is receiving increasing attention. Yet it is unclear whether the integration of cultural study and neuroscience is merely additive, providing additional evidence of neural plasticity in the human brain, or truly synergistic, yielding discoveries that neither discipline could have achieved alone. We discuss how the parent fields to CN: cross-cultural psychology, psychological anthropology and cognitive neuroscience inform the investigation of the role of cultural experience in shaping the brain. Drawing on well-established methodologies from cross-cultural psychology and cognitive neuroscience, we outline a set of guidelines for CN, evaluate 17 CN studies in terms of these guidelines, and provide a summary table of our results. We conclude that the combination of culture and neuroscience is both additive and synergistic; while some CN methodologies and findings will represent the direct union of information from parent fields, CN studies employing the methodological rigor required by this logistically challenging new field have the potential to transform existing methodologies and produce unique findings.
Cultural differences and their mechanisms
2013
Growing evidence has demonstrated cultural differences in cognitive processes. Whereas individuals living in interdependent social worlds, as illustrated by East Asian cultures, have been shown to have a more holistic cognitive style, those living in independent social environments, as exemplified by Western cultures, have been shown to have a more analytic cognitive style. Recent evidence has also begun to show the mechanisms underlying cultural differences, both by examining within-cultural differences and by showing effects of sociocultural contexts on cognitive processes. This chapter aims to highlight dynamic relationships between sociocultural contexts and cognitive processes by providing an overview of research on cultural differences and their mechanisms. First, we briefly summarize different approaches to studying cultural differences in cognition. Then, we review studies showing cultural differences in various cognitive processes, by focusing on holistic versus analytic cognition. Finally, we outline recent evidence showing the causes and mechanisms of cultural differences, as well as suggest future directions.