Page 18 [18]
OCR
ELIZABETH TROTT Although the phenomenon of multiple cultures has existed in the world for thousands of years, the ‘self’ or ‘individual’ as concepts for interpreting experience have not always been part of common vocabulary. For the majority today, the ‘other’ (who we are not) is dictated to us by religion, class structures or economic ideologies. Although the events listed by Scruton can be experienced as shared, their significance is frequently imposed. Often, conscious individual interpretation is limited by threats of punishment by particular culture. Members of a culture can be denied exposure to multiple conceptual worlds. In some cultures, the ‘collective’ corresponds to the ‘self’ and ‘others’ are the greater mass of human beings. ‘Others’ are understood as abstract beings, not as a particular culture. The cultural ‘collective’ as ‘self’ may regard other human beings, who are not part of the collective ‘self’, to be unnecessary to the collective ‘self’s’ survival. That these others are human beings — who the collective ‘self” is not — may be acknowledged, but, according to this worldview, mere human existence confers no basic rights and therefore violence and indifference are possible ‘collective self’ responses to non-members. Often the ‘other’ is understood as a power, or a goal, a purpose to be followed though never perfectly achieved, a God or religious orthodoxy, a supreme leader, etc. The possibilities of human conscious development are suppressed by fear, promises of an afterlife, beliefs that cannot be challenged or habits that do not encourage questions. Many centuries of narratives and stories associated with a specific culture (a group self) reinforce the characteristics attributed to others. Rational debates or education as the means for developing pluralism do not dominate some cultures’ conceptual constructs. Adaptive Culture In its original Latin sense, the word ‘culture’ means to cultivate (crops). What is needed in our understanding of culture is a provision for change and growth. A culture that does not have the provisions to adapt to change will increasingly impose its constructs on its members, denying them the freedom to learn other possibilities and explore their creative potential for problem solving. In his Logic, Hegel recognizes the need to accommodate change and so he proposes the synthesis of logical binaries, universality and particularity (his principles of affirmation and negation with self and other being examples). Ihe synthesis is the individual, meaning the self with a set of characteristics (particularities).'* 8 William Wallace (trans.), The Logic of Hegel, Oxford, Oxford University, 1963, originally published 1873. Hegel discusses the formal concepts, Paragraph 164, 294-295. For a more contemporary translation see Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel Selections, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957, 125. + 16 +
