A interesting story/study about culture - Printable Version +- zigbeenuthouse (https://www.zigbeenuthouse.com) +-- Forum: The Front Porch. Come on in and talk! (https://www.zigbeenuthouse.com/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: ZigbeeNutHouse List of topics for discussion (https://www.zigbeenuthouse.com/forum-2.html) +--- Thread: A interesting story/study about culture (/thread-2707.html) |
A interesting story/study about culture - P1tchblack - 09-12-2019 Since this is already a fairly long post, I removed the story about a 19th century Hatfield & McCoy type of family feud in Harlan, Kentucky, that kind of sets the stage for the discussion about culture and how it permeates generation after generation even when there is really no need for it. In this case, family on family violence was prevalent all up and down the Appalachian portion of the US and the remnants of that "culture of honor" still exist today. Read on if you want. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When one family fights with another, it’s a feud. When lots of families fight with one another in identical little towns up and down the same mountain range, it’s a pattern. What was the cause of the Appalachian pattern? Over the years, many potential explanations have been examined and debated, and the consensus appears to be that that region was plagued by a particularly virulent strain of what sociologists call a “culture of honor.†Cultures of honor tend to take root in highlands and other marginally fertile areas, such as Sicily or the mountainous Basque regions of Spain. If you live on some rocky mountainside, the explanation goes, you can’t farm. You probably raise goats or sheep, and the kind of culture that grows up around being a herdsman is very different from the culture that grows up around growing crops. The survival of a farmer depends on the cooperation of others in the community. But a herdsman is off by himself. Farmers also don’t have to worry that their livelihood will be stolen in the night, because crops can’t easily be stolen unless, of course, a thief wants to go to the trouble of harvesting an entire field on his own. But a herdsman does have to worry. He’s under constant threat of ruin through the loss of his animals. So he has to be aggressive: he has to make it clear, through his words and deeds, that he is not weak. He has to be willing to fight in response to even the slightest challenge to his reputation— and that’s what a “culture of honor†means. It’s a world where a man’s reputation is at the center of his livelihood and self-worth. “The critical moment in the development of the young shepherd’s reputation is his first quarrel,†the ethnographer J. K. Campbell writes of one herding culture in Greece. “Quarrels are necessarily public. They may occur in the coffee shop, the village square, or most frequently on a grazing boundary where a curse or a stone aimed at one of his straying sheep by another shepherd is an insult which inevitably requires a violent response.†So why was Appalachia the way it was? It was because of where the original inhabitants of the region came from. The so-called American backcountry states—from the Pennsylvania border south and west through Virginia and West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, and the northern end of Alabama and Georgia—were settled overwhelmingly by immigrants from one of the world’s most ferocious cultures of honor. They were “Scotch-Irishâ€â€”that is, from the lowlands of Scotland, the northern counties of England, and Ulster in Northern Ireland. The borderlands—as this region was known—were remote and lawless territories that had been fought over for hundreds of years. The people of the region were steeped in violence. They were herdsmen, scraping out a living on rocky and infertile land. They were clannish, responding to the harshness and turmoil of their environment by forming tight family bonds and placing loyalty to blood above all else. And when they immigrated to North America, they moved into the American interior, to remote, lawless, rocky, and marginally fertile places like Harlan that allowed them to reproduce in the New World the culture of honor they had created in the Old World. “To the first settlers, the American backcountry was a dangerous environment, just as the British borderlands had been,†the historian David Hackett Fischer writes in Albion’s Seed. Much of the southern highlands were “debatable lands†in the border sense of a contested territory without established government or the rule of law. The borderers were more at home than others in this anarchic environment, which was well suited to their family system, their warrior ethic, their farming and herding economy, their attitudes toward land and wealth and their ideas of work and power. So well adapted was the border culture to this environment that other ethnic groups tended to copy it. The ethos of the North British borders came to dominate this “dark and bloody ground,†partly by force of numbers, but mainly because it was a means of survival in a raw and dangerous world. * The triumph of a culture of honor helps to explain why the pattern of criminality in the American South has always been so distinctive. Murder rates are higher there than in the rest of the country. But crimes of property and “stranger†crimes—like muggings—are lower. As the sociologist John Shelton Reed has written, “The homicides in which the South seems to specialize are those in which someone is being killed by someone he (or often she) knows, for reasons both killer and victim understand.†Reed adds: “The statistics show that the Southerner who can avoid arguments and adultery is as safe as any other American, and probably safer.†In the backcountry, violence wasn’t for economic gain. It was personal. You fought over your honor. Many years ago, the southern newspaperman Hodding Carter told the story of how as a young man he served on a jury. As Reed describes it: The case before the jury involved an irascible gentleman who lived next door to a filling station. For several months he had been the butt of various jokes played by the attendants and the miscellaneous loafers who hung around the station, despite his warnings and his notorious short temper. One morning, he emptied both barrels of his shotgun at his tormenters, killing one, maiming another permanently, and wounding a third…. When the jury was polled by the incredulous judge, Carter was the only juror who recorded his vote as guilty. As one of the others put it, “He wouldn’t of been much of a man if he hadn’t shot them fellows.†Only in a culture of honor would it have occurred to the irascible gentleman that shooting someone was an appropriate response to a personal insult. And only in a culture of honor would it have occurred to a jury that murder—under those circumstances—was not a crime. I realize that we are often wary of making these kinds of broad generalizations about different cultural groups—and with good reason. This is the form that racial and ethnic stereotypes take. We want to believe that we are not prisoners of our ethnic histories. But the simple truth is that if you want to understand what happened in those small towns in Kentucky in the nineteenth century, you have to go back into the past—and not just one or two generations. You have to go back two or three or four hundred years, to a country on the other side of the ocean, and look closely at what exactly the people in a very specific geographic area of that country did for a living. The “culture of honor†hypothesis says that it matters where you’re from, not just in terms of where you grew up or where your parents grew up, but in terms of where your great grandparents and great-great-grandparents grew up and even where your great-great-great grandparents grew up. That is a strange and powerful fact. It’s just the beginning, though, because upon closer examination, cultural legacies turn out to be even stranger and more powerful than that. In the early 1990s, two psychologists at the University of Michigan—Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett —decided to conduct an experiment on the culture of honor. They knew that what happened in places like Harlan in the nineteenth century was, in all likelihood, a product of patterns laid down in the English borderlands centuries before. But their interest was in the present day. Was it possible to find remnants of the culture of honor in the modern era? So they decided to gather together a group of young men and insult them. “We sat down and tried to figure out what is the insult that would go to the heart of an eighteen-to-twenty-year-old’s brain,†Cohen says. “It didn’t take too long to come up with ‘*****.’ †The experiment went like this. The social sciences building at the University of Michigan has a long, narrow hallway in the basement lined with filing cabinets. The young men were called into a classroom, one by one, and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and return to the classroom—a simple, seemingly innocent academic exercise. For half the young men, that was it. They were the control group. For the other half, there was a catch. As they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, a man—a confederate of the experimenters—walked past them and pulled out a drawer in one of the filing cabinets. The already narrow hallway now became even narrower. As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder, and, in a low but audible voice, said the trigger word: “*****.†Cohen and Nisbett wanted to measure, as precisely as possible, what being called that word meant. They looked at the faces of their subjects and rated how much anger they saw. They shook the young men’s hands to see if their grip was firmer than usual. They took saliva samples from the students, both before and after the insult, to see if being called an ***** caused their levels of testosterone and cortisol—the hormones that drive arousal and aggression—to go up. Finally they asked the students to read the following story and supply a conclusion: It had only been about twenty minutes since they had arrived at the party when Jill pulled Steve aside, obviously bothered about something. “What’s wrong?†asked Steve. “It’s Larry. I mean, he knows that you and I are engaged, but he’s already made two passes at me tonight.†Jill walked back into the crowd, and Steve decided to keep his eye on Larry. Sure enough, within five minutes, Larry was reaching over and trying to kiss Jill. If you’ve been insulted, are you more likely to imagine Steve doing something violent to Larry? The results were unequivocal. There were clear differences in how the young men responded to being called a bad name. For some, the insult changed their behavior. For some it didn’t. The deciding factor in how they reacted wasn’t how emotionally secure they were, or whether they were intellectuals or jocks, or whether they were physically imposing or not. What mattered—and I think you can guess where this is headed—was where they were from. Most of the young men from the northern part of the United States treated the incident with amusement. They laughed it off. Their handshakes were unchanged. Their levels of cortisol actually went down, as if they were unconsciously trying to defuse their own anger. Only a few of them had Steve get violent with Larry. But the southerners? Oh, my. They were angry. Their cortisol and testosterone jumped. Their handshakes got firm. Steve was all over Larry. “We even played this game of chicken,†Cohen said. “We sent the students back down the hallways, and around the corner comes another confederate. The hallway is blocked, so there’s only room for one of them to pass. The guy we used was six three, two hundred fifty pounds. He used to play college football. He was now working as a bouncer in a college bar. He was walking down the hall in business mode—the way you walk through a bar when you are trying to break up a fight. The question was: how close do they get to the bouncer before they get out of the way? And believe me, they always get out of the way.†For the northerners, there was almost no effect. They got out of the way five or six feet beforehand, whether they had been insulted or not. The southerners, by contrast, were downright deferential in normal circumstances, stepping aside with more than nine feet to go. But if they had just been insulted? Less than two feet. Call a southerner an *****, and he’s itching for a fight. What Cohen and Nisbett were seeing in that long hall was the culture of honor in action: the southerners were reacting like Wix Howard did when Little Bob Turner accused him of cheating at poker. That study is strange, isn’t it? It’s one thing to conclude that groups of people living in circumstances pretty similar to their ancestors’ act a lot like their ancestors. But those southerners in the hallway study weren’t living in circumstances similar to their British ancestors. They didn’t even necessarily have British ancestors. They just happened to have grown up in the South. None of them were herdsmen. Nor were their parents herdsmen. They were living in the late twentieth century, not the late nineteenth century. They were students at the University of Michigan, in one of the northernmost states in America, which meant they were sufficiently cosmopolitan to travel hundreds of miles from the south to go to college. And none of that mattered. They still acted like they were living in nineteenth-century Harlan, Kentucky. “Your median student in those studies comes from a family making over a hundred thousand dollars, and that’s in nineteen ninety dollars,†Cohen says. “The southerners we see this effect with aren’t kids who come from the hills of Appalachia. They are more likely to be the sons of uppermiddle management Coca-Cola executives in Atlanta. And that’s the big question. Why should we get this effect with them? Why should one get it hundreds of years later? Why are these suburban-Atlanta kids acting out the ethos of the frontier?†Cultural legacies are powerful forces. They have deep roots and long lives. They persist, generation after generation, virtually intact, even as the economic and social and demographic conditions that spawned them have vanished, and they play such a role in directing attitudes and behavior that we cannot make sense of our world without them. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - 3rdgensooner - 09-12-2019 No study involved. Sociologists are liberal idiots too dumb to engage in real scientific inquiry. The math usually sends them into the pseudosciences unless they're already weird enough to go that way in the first place. Sociologists are brought up in the beginning of that screed. That is the signal to stop reading because BS lies ahead. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - P1tchblack - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:17 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: No study involved. Sociologists are liberal idiots too dumb to engage in real scientific inquiry. The math usually sends them into the pseudosciences unless they're already weird enough to go that way in the first place. Sociologists are brought up in the beginning of that screed. That is the signal to stop reading because BS lies ahead. Your opinion of them doesn't change the relevance/truth in them. It's funny how unwilling so many people are to try to understand human nature and why we do the things we do. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - lrrps21 - 09-12-2019 Yup. People choose their major based on their math skills. Sociology majors suck at math. Back in the day, the broad I was dating at the time wanted to study International Business at tOSU. I basically lived in Drackett Tower every weekend because she sucked at math. I decided it was not worth driving 2 hours each way to do her math homework. I told her as I walked out the door "You better get better at math quick or end up majoring in Sociology" she switched majors to - drum roll - Sociology. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - lrrps21 - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:23 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:(09-12-2019, 01:17 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: No study involved. Sociologists are liberal idiots too dumb to engage in real scientific inquiry. The math usually sends them into the pseudosciences unless they're already weird enough to go that way in the first place. Sociologists are brought up in the beginning of that screed. That is the signal to stop reading because BS lies ahead. Sociology is nothing more than a pseudoscience. It's dominated by women for a reason. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - Hightop77 - 09-12-2019 This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: As the sociologist John Shelton Reed has written, “The homicides in which the South seems to specialize are those in which someone is being killed by someone he (or often she) knows, for reasons both killer and victim understand.†It's a meaningless comment attempting to sound significant because in reality, the vast majority of homicides everywhere involve people that know each other. Has literally zero to do with the South or Southerners. What a joke. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - P1tchblack - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: You bolded, but clearly missed, the important part:  for reasons both killer and victim understand. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - lrrps21 - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: Yup. Just like 'correlation does not equal cause'. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - Hightop77 - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:43 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:And that is true for nearly all homicides when people know each other. I can't believe you just posted that.(09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: RE: A interesting story/study about culture - maize - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: LOL. Apparently Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. are in the South now. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - lrrps21 - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:49 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:(09-12-2019, 01:43 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:And that is true for nearly all homicides when people know each other. I can't believe you just posted that.(09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: I can. It's obvious p!tch majored in Sociology or some other pseudoscience. I suspected it awhile ago. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - P1tchblack - 09-12-2019 (09-12-2019, 01:49 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:(09-12-2019, 01:43 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:And that is true for nearly all homicides when people know each other. I can't believe you just posted that.(09-12-2019, 01:41 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: This is the kind of stuff that dupes ignorant people reading this nonsense: (I'll try again, because this most definitely is not true of most homicides but, please, just keep repeating your faux 'shock') for reasons both killer and victim understand. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - Alabuckeye - 09-12-2019 I think some of you are partially full of nonsense. Sociology has a fair amount of garbage, but the study of human behavior is both fascinating and enlightening. RE: A interesting story/study about culture - TcSoup - 09-12-2019 Knew a Atheist , Libertarian , Sociology Major back in the day. Had a Full Beard, Wore Plaid Pants everyday to work part time cutting carpet ( Everyone else in Jeans) Like to Smoke Dope and talk nonsense. We all just laughed him off and didn't take him very seriously . Name was Todd Pitch is that you.? RE: A interesting story/study about culture - Brutus Buckeye - 09-12-2019 3V Fail |