Essay 1 Dorothy lee - Grade: A+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay 1 for SOSC 1140...

Description

1

Name Professor Cameron Johnston SOSC 1140 07 September 2014 Individual Autonomy and Social Structure By looking at a number of cultural practises, Lee Dorothy explores the alternative approaches taken towards various situations. She believes that these alternatives and the behaviour of one’s personal autonomy arise from their background of culture. In this section, Lee shows us the different viewpoints of situations in the Western society which show how “the principle of personal autonomy is supported by the cultural framework” (Lee, Dorothy 5). Our personal autonomy is however limited due to social standards. This refers to the idea of following your internal beliefs of cultural values as well as the role of external values such as the society that surrounds you. The key social problem that Lee addresses is the social structure which restricts one’s personal autonomy—to be able to decide for yourself (Lee 5). It only concerns her if the conception of individual autonomy beings to cause chaos with the idea of a democracy (Lee 6). However, using numerous examples from these cultural practises, she shows how law and limits and personal autonomy can coexist effectively. She believes that with a democracy, it is not necessary for one to eliminate his or her spontaneity. Lee looks into the cultural practises related to general themes of language, child rearing, leadership and work. In this essay I will emphasize on her discovery of cultural values affecting the personal autonomy of people when it comes to child rearing.

2 It has been difficult to implement the principle of individual integrity in heterogeneous societies (Lee 5). A society is seen as a social unit in which everyone acts according to the “norm” rather than exercising their own freedom of choice. Despite this, some people decide to practise their own personal autonomy. Lee states that “It is often difficult for us to decide exactly how much our principle of personal autonomy involves” (Lee 6). She shows how if cultures abide by their cultural practises, having the opportunity for spontaneous functioning, the key social problem can be resolved. She takes examples from the way children of different cultures are raised which may seem unusual to the society. Showing respect for children varies greatly amongst the Wintu Indians and the Sikh. In the culture of the Wintu Indians, people do not give freedom to their children, because it is not theirs to give (Lee 6). This is their way of showing respect to the individual. Ethnographers have presented many incidents of implementation of respect for personal quality. In this section, Lee shows us an example of how a boy in a Sikh household in British Columbia expresses respect consistently with his cultural values. When asked to entertain his baby brother, he silently gave the baby a toy truck without actually showing how the truck works (Lee 7). The society may see it as non-involvement, but this was the personal autonomy of the Sikh; leaving the child to explore and discover for himself without any attempt to influence him. “For the Navaho mother, personal autonomy means that her child has the freedom to make his own mistakes, to suffer pain or grief or joy and learn from experience” (Lee 13). The mother gives her child freedom, showing faith in him and allowing him to learn from trial and error in respect to the roots of her cultural values. Allowing her child to learn from his own mistakes, the mother prepares him for later steps in his life. This concept of child rearing gives the child freedom to move, to act, to undertake responsibly from his own perspective. This is something that many people in our society have been apprehensive about: the

3 implications of personal autonomy. If such practises are supported throughout the entire life of a person, it is not apt to lead to lawlessness and chaos (Lee 9). In this chapter, Lee basically demonstrates how one can still follow cultural practises in a society without having to completely act as a social unit. In her chapter overall, she has shown examples of practises of child rearing, language, leadership and work to her advantage to prove her conclusion. If in these practises, one supports their values by deep conviction, then spontaneity is not necessarily killed by group responsibility and the respect for individual integrity is not an end to be achieved by specific means (Lee 14). If this principle is followed, there can be a resolution to the key social problem of the conflict between social structure and personal autonomy. Different cultures following their own values in a society doesn’t necessarily lead to lawlessness, but shows coexistence of autonomy and limits. Basically, the resolution she sees to the key social problem is that if a heterogeneous society provides freedom to the individual or the opportunity of spontaneous functioning, then law and limits and personal autonomy can coexist in an effective manner.

4 Works Cited: Lee, Dorothy. “Individual Autonomy and Social Structure.” Freedom and Culture. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1959. 5-14...