– Written by Kinga Csorba
1) Theoretical approaches
a) Culture
Lotman defines culture not as a system of inherited information, but as a way of organising and storing it. Voigt, however, emphasises the communicative nature of culture, the way in which we interact with our peers, the way in which we initiate contact, which is largely determined by the family, the primary socialising medium with which we interact.
Margaret Mead sees culture as an acquired form of human behaviour that is transmitted by a group of persons united by a common heritage to their descendants.
Geertz “culture is a historically transmitted model of meanings embedded in symbols, a system of ideas inherited in symbolic form, to which human communication belongs, preserving itself and developing its knowledge and behaviour for life”.
The word ‘culture’ has several meanings, the first that comes to mind when we hear the word ‘culture’: various cultural events, works of art, e.g. opera, music, books, etc. However, there is another definition of culture, which is a system of values and behaviour that enables a particular group to understand and make sense of its world. Cultures are not static, they are not fixed, they are constantly evolving.
Everyone is born into a culture, and the process of learning about and embracing one’s own culture is also known as socialisation. Every society transmits its own cultural values to its members. From birth, a child learns the meaning and use of symbols and signs.
b) Identity
Identity is not something innate, but something socially constructed as a function of the roles we choose for ourselves.
Identity, like culture, has many aspects. Identity is often likened to an onion, with layers corresponding to aspects of identity. These are made up of the following elements:
– roles in life
– optional elements of identity: fan of a musical genre, member of a political party, follower of a style of dress, etc.
– place of birth, home
– belonging to a minority
– social gender, role or sexual orientation
– religion
Our identity depends not only on how we perceive ourselves, but also on how others identify us. In most cases we do not like this classification or stigma. Our identity is impossible to form monologically, as it is always dependent on the recognition of others. It is coded into the politics of recognition that every identity, every chosen role, is recognised as equal to the others, regardless of its perceived or real value.
Pierre Manent’s “promise of the politics of recognition” is that we, as members of the political community, should receive from others the active recognition, empathy and care, the emotional intimacy that we deserve.
In his book on ingratitude, Alain Finkielkraut argues that where the politics of recognition takes on a new colour, it is no longer convictions that are contested, but identities. There is a huge difference between the two, while arguments can be refuted, identities cannot. But to attempt to challenge the validity of an identity is to challenge its very existence, to challenge its humanity.
Kant is also sharp on the subject of recognition, saying that while failing to do one’s duty of love for another is a mistake, failing to do one’s duty of respect for one’s fellow human beings is a sin.
David Miller, a well-known Oxford professor of political philosophy, argues that the politics of recognition goes beyond tolerance, because cultural groups are no longer content to simply display their identities through private or social organisations, but to gain political recognition.