This was a topic introduction I shared at an event called Ideas and Questions Cafe held in Tokyo. These events are intended to promote discussion and exchange of diverse perspectives among participants. They also typically introduce a Christian perspective which is nearly always novel for most participants. You can also view this content in Japanese here.
Today’s question is about cultural identity. To what extent should we define ourselves as part of a cultural body, i.e. a certain “people” or ethnic group? Is it good to have a strong sense of cultural identity? Let’s look at the positive view, the negative view, and then an alternative view.
First, the idea that yes, a strong cultural identity is good. Let me briefly clarify what we are talking about when we’re talking about cultural identity. Historical sociologist Anthony D. Smith defined what I’m calling an “ethnic group” with six points:
- a name for the group
- a myth of common ancestry, whether factual or not
- shared historical memories
- These are often the most extreme highs or lows, such as victory or defeat in war
- one or more differentiating elements of common culture
- For example, a shared language, religion, or diet
- a link with a specific homeland
- In other words, the group considers a specific place in the world their true “home”, whether or not they live there
- a sense of solidarity
- i.e. feelings of belonging and mutual obligation toward other group members
Strong sense of cultural identity
So what do societies look like when people strongly identify with their cultural group?
- People have a clear and more or less permanent role in a community. You are born into a family, part of a certain town or area or country, and others in your community will always expect you to remain an active part of it.
- People have a sense of belonging to something bigger. This can give enough of a sense of purpose in life that most people in this sort of society don’t feel the need to reflect on what their life is for.
- Social interactions are smooth because people are working with more or less the same set of expectations, and society as a whole is stable. Moral and behavioral values are also stable.
- Society exhibits a high degree of refinement of accepted practices. Basically this sort of society will really work on things they already think are good. This can be something practical, like cuisine or construction methods, or abstract, like the arts or social etiquette. These things are often what give a society its distinctiveness.
- Behavior is policed by the community, and people are incentivized to maintain a good reputation. Less about legal/illegal, more about what people around you see as good or bad.
Those are basically positive aspects. On the other hand we also see:
- A high degree of pressure to live up to group expectations.
- Bias toward one’s in-group over principles like justice, merit, etc. The classic example of this is the hypothetical scenario of your friend hitting a pedestrian with a car and severely injuring them. If your testimony in court can help them avoid punishment, should you lie? Societies with strong in-group identity promote lying for the sake of loyalty over impartial justice.
- Prejudice toward different ideas, different ways of doing things, and different people. In other words, the innate response to something or someone being different is negative. Why is that bad? Prejudice assumes personal superiority without considering reality. Changes that could greatly benefit one’s own community are seen as unimportant, inferior, or dangerous. And even worse, outsiders are seen as inherently unimportant, inferior, or dangerous.
Weak sense of cultural identity (Globalism)
Next, what about a weak sense of cultural identity? This is basically what many refer to as globalism. Societies that are more globally oriented than ethnic-group oriented tend to exhibit these sorts of characteristics:
- Membership is based not on being a part of an ethnic cultural group, but on whether an individual is willing to agree to a common ideological framework. For example, on a national scale, it’s basically just “Do you agree to abide by the constitution and laws of this country?” On a smaller scale, like leasing an apartment, it’s the same thing—will you abide by the terms and conditions of this lease? The individual’s group affiliation is irrelevant. Globalist societies assume there should be a way for people to join their society.
- Globalist societies also have higher levels of trust in strangers outside their cultural in-group, since they assume that everyone is operating with the same basic framework of right and wrong. By the same token, all individuals are seen as having the same value and deserving of equal treatment, whether family or a total cultural outsider.
- Globalism has an emphasis on individual freedom, which leads to greater innovation and general prosperity. Because existing practices are not linked to identity, individuals are free to adopt different ideas or practices without feeling like they’re rejecting their group.
And here’s a few of the negative characteristics we tend to see:
- Higher rates of anxiety about one’s purpose. In a globalist society, individuals must create their own identity, usually through their accomplishments, which means that failing to do so comes with crushing self-doubt. On top of this, because individuals cannot count on their in-group to support them unconditionally, they also may have anxiety about survival itself when struggling.
- High costs of maintaining society’s basic framework. You need longer, more explicit contracts for a greater number of scenarios. Further, enforcement also has to be handled top down, so globalist societies need to spend more on security and policing.
- Globalist societies are also more fragile because they are based on abstract ideas, rather than concrete relationships with people in one’s cultural group. Values can shift quickly, leading to generation gaps or polarization within the society.
- Finally, globalist societies can create a sort of race to the bottom where mass appeal is prioritized over less concrete values such as morality, aesthetics, or traditions.
A Christian perspective on cultural identity
Lastly I briefly want to introduce a Christian perspective on cultural identity, an incredibly significant question in the early days of Christianity.
- Christianity assumes that each human being has special and equal value because the one, all-powerful God created humanity “in his image”. In other words, human beings are representatives of God, and so the way you treat them should be a reflection of your respect for God.
- Christianity also credits the existence of distinct cultural groups to the same God, although there is no assumption a given culture will continue to exist.
- In contrast to other religions, Christianity does not have a preferred language or culture. The main text of Christianity is itself multilingual, and although the first Christians were virtually all Jewish, within 20 years of Christianity’s inception there was an official statement that no culture would be preferred. Christians are taught not to concern themselves with aligning or de-aligning with a particular ethnic or cultural group, but to focus on caring for others and following Jesus Christ’s teachings.
- In Christianity, both individual and cultural identities are filtered through the ultimate core identification of belonging to Christ and being re-created to be like Christ. An early Christian leader Paul wrote:
“…you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self. You are being renewed in knowledge according to the image of your Creator. In Christ there is not Greek and Jew…barbarian, Scythian [these are all various cultural groups], slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.”
Now we’ll start table discussions. As always I hope we can learn from each other’s points of view.
Ben Shimomura 