Reaction Paper

Lecture Note A

We live in a world of relationships. Although we recognize ourselves and others as individual beings, the designation is more a convenience than a definitive reality. All

humans enter the world and live as members of a social group. While the degree of social interaction varies widely from person to person throughout life, the social aspect of the

human experience is universal. Even taking into account the occasional cave dwelling hermit or the ship-wrecked resident of a deserted island, no human lives his or her entire life as a self-contained monad. We are social creatures and as such our very survival, at least at

times, depends upon other people.

Beyond basic survival our sense of who we are is defined by our relationships with others. Any life role, such as parent, teacher, criminal, or counselor requires that another person or

persons occupy a logical complimentary role; such as, child, student, victim, or client. While one role does not necessarily create the other (victims certainly don't create criminals), a role requires a logical compliment to exist. As such, there is no teacher without

the complimentary role of student, nor is there a leader without the complimentary role of follower.

Nested social systems

The concept of the individual person occupies a place of preeminence in many cultures, particularly those associated with the western world. In these societies, individual achievement and accomplishment are lauded and illuminated, often eclipsing the collective

aspect of human endeavor and achievement. Individuals may be viewed as the basic unit of human existence. The individuals possess a brain which allows volitional thought and

senses which allow interaction with the environment. Such a perspective of individual preeminence is in no way wrong. It is, however, incomplete.

Given the universal social nature of the human experience, the concept of the individual can also be viewed as an arbitrary construct in which the larger social aspect of human existence

is parsed for convenience. The singular biological individual only exists as part of a larger social system. Although we are born, live, and die in the confines of a somewhat

autonomous human body, we are inextricably connected to other people throughout our lives, and dependent upon these people for existence and survival. In consideration of this

fact, concepts of connectedness and social relationships, in many ways, provide more valid and accurate descriptors of human existence and human experience compared to the

concept of the individual.

This aware, that the individual exists only as part of a larger social system, holds profound

implications for understanding human behavior and ultimately, we may conceptualize humanity as a single social group. However, the totality of humanity is commonly divided

into smaller subsystems for heuristic purposes (Becvar, Canfield, Becvar; 1999.) If we conceptualize the various connections that individuals have with others, we recognize that

any defined relationship such as a couple, family, or community only exits as a subsystem of a larger defined social system. Moving from the simple to the more complex, we progress

from a recognition of the individual, to the couple or dyad, to a basic social group such as a family, to a larger social group such as an extended family, to an even larger group such as a

community or tribe, and to still larger and more complex social systems based on some criteria of ethnicity, race, nationality, or culture.

Relational dyads and pair bonding

It remains a biological fact that newborn humans cannot survive without adult support. Under optimal environmental circumstances, it is questionable whether any human under

three or four years of age could survive independently. An infant’s survival is dependent upon the nurturing of an older human. Under adverse or harsh environmental

circumstances, even adults require support to survive. The human biological need for support defines us as a social species.

Despite cloning and advances in reproductive technology, at the dawn of the 21st century our ability to reproduce as a species still requires sexual pairing. Our survival is dependent

upon reaching an age of viability, which requires the support of at least one other person. This reality has led to the formation of common human social connections. The most

elemental and essential to the process of human reproduction is the male-female dyad. The most essential to infant viability is the parent-child dyad (adult- infant dyad)

In many societies, the human social unit consisting of one adult male, one adult female, and their offspring constitute the basic human biological unit of the family. In western societies

this has come to be known as the nuclear family. However, in many other societies, the extended family, consisting of multiple generations living in the same household or close

proximity, constitute the primary human social unit.

The family is built on the social structure of a monogamous marital dyad, consisting of one male and one female. However, monogamy is by no means the universal model for intimacy and families. Many human cultures, presently and throughout human history,

have primary or secondary family social structures which are polygamous, consisting one husband and several wives. Many tribal societies are organized around a polygamous family

unit. By custom and law, polygamous marriages are not uncommon in many Muslim societies. By contrast, in many western countries polygamous is illegal.

There are also many variations on both monogamous and polygamous family structures. Divorce, single-parent households, multi-generational extended households, and various

alternative lifestyles yield a variety of family configurations. Regardless of form, the family

unit provides the basic structure which, among other things, supports reproduction and

support of offspring.

To this end, all human cultures appear to have some form of recognition of pair bonding between men and woman. However, the western concept of monogamous marriage is by no means universal and the ideal of life-long sexual fidelity is an ideal driven by a particular

social value, rather than by human biology.

None-the-less, all human cultures appear to have some sort of ritualized pair bonding between men and women. The sexual pairing between a particular man and a particular

woman may be a brief encounter or it may be a life-long bond, depending upon social and cultural customs and mores. The reasons for entering into a dyadic relationship certainly go

beyond biological imperatives of reproduction. People form close social relationships to meet a number of life needs (i.e. companionship, economic support, mutual support,

division of labor, child rearing, sexual gratification, social status, etc.) Depending upon the customs and values of a particular society, the pair bond may be brief or life-long; the bond may be formal or informal.

Biologically, humans as well as most other living organisms on our planet produce far more

offspring than could ever reach adulthood. Historically, disease, famine, and war have taken a large toll in human life and until relatively recently in human history these realities have

kept human population levels somewhat stable. Only in the last several hundred years has technology brought about great advances in food production, health care, medicine, and sanitation, resulting in a dramatic decrease in infant mortality and subsequent increase in

human life expectancy.

As such, it is no longer necessary for all humans to reproduce in order to maintain stable population levels. In fact, the notable decrease in worldwide infant mortality means that

more people reach adulthood and reproduce. In many regions of the world, this increased life span has resulted in over population, depletion of resources, and overall reduction in the standards and quality of life for many people.

Scientific advances in human cloning research aside, heterosexual pairing is necessary for

human sexual reproduction and to ensure continuation of the human race. However, while heterosexual relationships represent the vast majority of human pair bonds, they are by no

means the universal. Gay and Lesbian relationships have been noted throughout human history. Although the causes and origins of homosexuality remain largely speculative, it is well established that homosexual behavior is a common form of human sexual and

relational expression While cultures vary in terms of their level of tolerance and acceptance for homosexual unions, such relationships are common and increasingly accepted in many

countries, representing an alternative sexual and relational lifestyle for many.

As a species, we have been extremely successful, at least in terms of proliferation. However, with the current world population exceeding six billion people, the social reproductive strategies which have served us so well in the past may no longer work to our benefit, at

least in the immediate future. At a macro level, the mechanisms which govern global

human reproduction are not clearly understood and we can only trust that the successful

evolutionary strategies of human reproduction will have emerged over the millennia will continue to work to our favor in the future.

The human sex drive remains strong and our present social-sexual behaviors continue to ensure an abundance of humans. However, a biological sexual/reproductive imperative

only offers a partial explanation as to why humans pair up. Many couples remain together beyond child bearing age and many people form dyadic relationships for non-reproductive

purpose. Many people, at least in cultures which do not persecute homosexuality, form same sex relationships for many of the same reasons as do heterosexual couples.

One explanation to be offered is that the human tendency to engage in social pair bonding

serves a primary biological purpose which ensures reproduction, but that human existence does not depend upon every couple reproducing. Perhaps in addition to facilitating human

reproduction, of which most people engage, the formation of dyadic relationships also fulfills a number of other essential survival or life enhancement needs.

A child born to this couple may be reared within the context of this nuclear family unit, or the child may be separated from its biological mother at birth and reared by others.

Family Regardless of the term we use to describe our social grouping (e.g. family, community, tribe,

race, culture), this cultural identity and affiliation plays a role throughout our lives. From birth we are immersed in the beliefs, values, customs, traditions of our culture. The

language we speak, the food we eat, the manner in which we worship and countless other expressions are learned in the context of our culture.

As adults we may embrace, modify, or reject the values of our culture, but we can never escape our own cultural influence. Throughout our lives, our cultural origins serve as the

reference points by which we judge all other subsequent views and beliefs. Although we may separate from our cultural group and adopt different customs and beliefs we remain

connected to or cultural origins.

For most of us, our membership in a particular cultural group is a circumstance of birth or fate. We do not choose our parents, nor at least initially, do we choose the culture into which we are born. While some people transcend their culture of birth through adoption or

other circumstance, the vast majority of humans are born into, live, and die within the social context of a particular cultural group.

Either as a consequence of birth circumstances or by conscious choice, we live our lives in

the context of a particular social community, whose beliefs and understanding of the world provide a foundation by which we judge understand and give meaning to the world. From early infancy we acquire an awareness of our world. We come to identify with a particular

community, region, or nation. Although we may exchange the community in which we live for another community, our origins invariably provide the basis by which all other live

circumstances are compared.

These affiliations, or more importantly the interactions we encounter in these various social affiliations, define us as individuals. Social institutions offer us personal identity and transmit an awareness of this identity. Collectively, this sense of identity may be referred to

a culture. Throughout human history, this is the way it has always been. Families, living units,

communities, tribes, nations, have formulated belief and value systems and transmitted

those belief and value systems to their members. The youth learn from the older members of society.

The process of education is more accurately a process of indoctrination in which a particular

society imprints upon its members the collective set of beliefs. To this purpose, we construct formal and informal methods for educating members of our society. This process begins at

birth and continues throughout our lifetime. The family unit, particularly during childhood and adolescence, plays a central role in the lives of most people, however as most parent can attest, the influence of the family is only partial. Peer relationships, as well as membership

in various community groups, play an important role in this process of cultural assimilation. Schools, colleges, and universities exist for the primary purpose of teaching the beliefs

society. For many, a particular religious affiliation or belief system occupies a position of central importance. On a larger scale, expressions of popular culture are defined and

conveyed through various media such as television, radio, cinema, theater, music, art, books, magazines, and cyber media.

Cultural Identifiers For convenience and utility, we often parse humanity into separate and distinct groups.

Using some criteria to distinguish one cultural group from another, is both useful and problematic. Cultural identity, however it is defined, serves to create alliances and mutual

support. It also creates a sense of division with other people who differ from members of the identified group in some aspect.

As such, we grapple with the similarities among and distinctions between Europeans and Asians; Christians and Muslims; Protestants and Catholics, etc. etc. While useful in some

contexts, such cultural labels are social constructions which illuminate some trait or demographic variable as essential while minimizing or ignoring other variables as irrelevant

or incidental. Thus the term Christian or African American, or any of a number of other cultural identifiers, provides a label which allows comparison within and between groups of

people. Between the individual and the totality of humanity, there are any number of criteria which

might be employed to identify and distinguish one person from another. Language, race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, .... and many other identifiers may be used to

distinguish one person from another. These identifiers, in and of themselves, have no meaning beyond what one attributes to them. However, used singularly or in combination,

such identifiers serve as a taxonomic tool for identifying groups, distinguishing between us

and them.

This challenge in selecting any factor as a basis for establishing cultural identity is to recognize which factor, or set of factors is essential to cultural identity and which factor(s)

are merely incidental. While race has been widely recognized as distinctive cultural identifiers, in some contexts this variable may be merely incidental with factors such as

religion or sexual orientation playing a more central role in cultural identity.

The following is a partial list of factors which may be used as a basis for establishing cultural identity:

Language Race Religion

Ethnicity Nationality/national origin

Sexual orientation/ sexual practice Socio-economic status Physical attractiveness

Education/ Intelligence Political/philosophical orientation

Social group membership Common Customs/traditions/rituals

Family structure/child rearing practices Values/beliefs

Gender Age Food preference

Music/art preference Similar clothing

Common Recreational interests (i.e. sports)

Shared history of oppression Physical limitations history of oppression

Consider which of these "cultural identifiers" are essential and critical to one's cultural identity, and which are merely incidental.

B,Canfield