Is expression objective? A problem with multiculturalism.

[Mole]

Is expression objective?

 

This is a personal question for me. Living in Melbourne, Australia the demographics are extremely multicultural. I always knew that I find it hard to express myself to others. I have never gotten along very well with people. But I didn't know exactly what was interrupting me. I thought more about what it means to communicate, and what it means, to be honest, yourself, and how to have friendships and not just classmates. Recently I've been reading articles and watching video on social constructionism and I guess that's what sparks my question. I definitely don't agree with social constructionism but as this question is rather personal, it's more of a priority that I understand the true reality of my situation.

 

There are two perspectives to this question that I can think of...

 

1. Our expressions are interpreted as a subjective reality depending on earlier experiences. In one culture the colour pink is masculine, so when using pink to express yourself, misunderstanding is inevitable. This same inevitability is true with all communication since we all have different past experiences. Therefore, it's impossible to make judgements about people and their virtues as what is virtuous in their reality is different to our own.

 

2. Expressions are learned from objective reality and so they are universal. While the colour pink may be a masculine colour in another culture, that is appreciated and understood by members of different cultures. While the colour pink being a masculine colour is a social construct, masculinity is not. Fundamentally, our understanding of our reality must be objective for there to be some kind of standard set between people when they communicate.

 

While cultures, personalities and sexes are different, their differences are understood objectively.

 

For example, Australians can be described as more cynical of authority than Americans, but Americans can be described as being more cynical to authority than the Japanese. Just because Australians don't see Americans as cynical but the Japanese do, that doesn't mean that there are separate realities that exist in which one reality Americans are cynical and in the other they aren't. Both the Japanese and Australian perspective is factual. Their cognitive interpretations are the same even though they use different language to define Americans. They are both observing objective reality and understand it for what it really is if they are rational.

 

The difference in languages might be pointed to as a proof that expression is a social construct. The purpose of an expression is an action of making known one's thoughts or feelings. This must have some medium in reality to exist. The medium is different between cultures, but that does not mean that if people use different mediums they will misinterpret each other. If I speak Mandarin to an Englishman, we will still understand the same reality being that he cannot understand what I'm saying. Honesty is what is important and thankfully it a universal value. As long as both parties hold honesty as a value, they will be able to communicate without misinterpreting. Their communication will be simple, hand gestures, the tone of voice, handshake, etc. But they still understand each other completely and so a real relationship that exists objectively can be formed.

 

People's sense of humour is different, although the humour is the same artefact for everyone. A curry is still a curry. While I might not find another person very funny I have not misunderstood their joke. 

 

Since animals are also capable of communication, they also understand our expressions objectively.  They may not be capable of virtue or responsibility but they can understand a humans affections and pains and empathise with it to a degree. Dogs are arguably best at empathising with humans.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second proposition sounds nice. But it leaves us with the problem of why are situations awkward? An awkward conversation implies a failure to communicate. The only possible answer I can give is that it's the same reason why people become 'aromantic' or 'gender-fluid'. It's a form of anxiety control and it is dishonest. Cultures can hold forms of communication that can never be understood by outsiders in the same way that violence as a form of communication can never be understood by people who weren't subjected to it at an early age.

 

Expressions are a mix of objectivity, honesty, and subjectivity, trauma.

 

Don't get me wrong. I've had many friends from ethnicities and cultures other than my own. In fact, I'd say it is the majority of my friends. I'm really thankful for being their friends. But sometimes I have trouble meeting people from other ethnicities. A certain ethnicity more than others, but I won't mention it here. Sometimes I wonder what is it that I'm doing wrong? How can I have a meaningful conversation with this person? Of course, I could be doing something wrong, but why do I have problems only with this particular group?

 

I've come to a thought that some cultures traumatise more than others, and as a result, they have anxiety control built into their culture. And I perhaps some people, especially sociologists, see this aspect of cultures and believe that it is the whole of cultures. A person of a specific culture might have a nihilistic attitude towards the world which he can express within his own culture but cannot express in other cultures since nihilism is not a universal value but a result of trauma. Only boxers box. Another example is in group preferences. The caste system in India. While honesty is objective, the kind of trauma and way of dealing with it is subjective. It's just that the people in a certain group were subjected to a similar form of trauma and therefore can communicate through that trauma to a definitive extent. They only understand each other to an extent but far more to an extent than those who were never subjected to it. Since the human connection is based upon understanding, it makes them much happier in the short term to be with other traumatised people than to be with those who have really no relation to them. In the long term, of course, it is best to confront the trauma and start communicating to people in an honest way.

 

Going back to animals, perhaps we love them so much because they are generally not subject to trauma the way humans are. When I look at my cat I see something real. I feel empathetic towards the cat. I see an essence about her, not as a cat, there are many different kinds of cats, but as an individual. I think many pet owners can agree. Humanity has a dysfunctional history. Empires were built and destroyed. Infant mortality was extremely high in the past. It is only really before the state that dysfunction didn't systematically exist. Can an animal's history be called dysfunctional? Rarely ever in the wild, even though they are subject to predators.

 

It's just a thought, I mean there could be very happy people within those groups that really do express in a way I can't relate to. I always try to work on myself and not just blame others and try to see what I'm doing wrong. But what do you think? What's the best way to deal with the world when it gives you awkwardness and dullness? Thanks. 

[EclecticIdealist]

By expression, I gather you mean the attempt to communicate an idea to another either verbally (words that are written or spoken) or by body language (facial expressions, body language, and gestures). I believe it is important to understand that reality is objective and factual as is what is directly perceived, but the meaning we attach to our perceptions while strongly influenced by our common physiology which is objective, is nevertheless also strongly influenced by our individual experiences which are subjective, and reasoning which may vary from mostly non-rational/emotional to irrational to rational, depending upon our education, experience, and discipline. In other words, there is no inherent meaning to anything; we impute meaning to everything. Nevertheless, because there is a broad commonality of physiology and experiences deliberately created through verbal language and cultural traditions, not to mention that as human beings, most of our emotions are expressed the same way from culture to culture, there is a strong correlation between our subjective interpretations or imputed meaning we attribute to others communication attempts and what is intended by those attempting to communicate with us.

 

Nevertheless, due to cultural differences, the meaning of certain behaviors will sometimes be different. What is deemed an expression of sincere admiration and respect for a person of Japanese ethnicity may be deemed too formal and unfriendly by a Westerner, especially an American or Australian who tend to be very informal. The actions are the same, but the interpretation or meaning in the minds of the individuals may be virtually opposite due to cultural expectations and indoctrination.

 

Often times, there are a number of barriers to communication between people from significantly different cultures; especially cultures that are slightly xenophobic or racially, ethnically, or religiously supremacist in their views. In some cases, the person does not feel free to even entertain the possibility of friendship with a person of another race, ethnicity, religion, or culture due to an often legitimate fear of ostracism by family, friends, and community. This is often too much for a person to risk losing and so they will not consider the possibility unless they are already feeling ostracized and isolated from those groups.

  

What you are saying about those who are victims of trauma being better able to relate to others who have similarly been victimized, especially as a cultural norm, is, I believe a quite accurate assessment; but it is not merely cultural trauma which can make the person relatable to another. Similar traumatic experiences from family members or childhood peers can also establish a commonality of experience and thus, greater understanding than with those who have not experienced such trauma. However, it is inadvisable to attempt any kind of relationship with such a person without a full awareness of the cultural, family, or childhood trauma and the way to overcome its effects. Without such awareness, one is likely to encounter either extreme difficulty with intimacy, or open themselves up to being the recipient of abuse that has its basis in cultural traditions; and often both.

 

 

[Mole]

Great response. I did quite a lot of mental gymnastics in my post but your post is consistent. Thanks.

[Mole]

I guess I'm just a bit worried about it. I mean could the Japanese person come to change their perspective about Americans in your example? If we all learn these expressions from others, how can we actually completely ever understand others? Is intimacy just sharing a similar history? A huge amount of the time I don't find others funny. I don't know what's behind that. Is it my personality or is it my understanding of the world.

[EclecticIdealist]

I guess I'm just a bit worried about it. I mean could the Japanese person come to change their perspective about Americans in your example? If we all learn these expressions from others, how can we actually completely ever understand others? Is intimacy just sharing a similar history? A huge amount of the time I don't find others funny. I don't know what's behind that. Is it my personality or is it my understanding of the world.

Yes. There is nothing which prevents a person from developing and expected perspective or even changing one's perspective . As far as learning these expressions from another, the fastest way is by being totally immersed in the culture, preferably with someone with a similar background as yours from birth, but who has been completely immersed in the other culture for several years as well as someone immersed in that culture from birth who has been immersed in your culture for several years. In this way, you can get the perspective on the culture from someone who has gone before you as well as someone coming from it who now lives in yours. Reading books about the cultural traditions and mores can help, but nothing can compare to actual first-hand experience.

 

Everything that we learn from verbal language to facial and body language we learn by repetition of example and repetition of practice with feedback. The fact that we can share a common understanding for very complex ideas expressed verbally (even if that understanding is only 95-99.99%) is testament to the fact that we can ultimately learn to understand others, including their facial expressions and body language. Whether or not we will truly appreciate or love what we come to understand will depend entirely on how much it fulfills our needs, desires, and expectations (or standards), the lower our needs, desires, and expectations (standards) the easier we will find it to appreciate and like (or perhaps even love) others. However, such love comes at a cost, that being the sense of intimacy and connection that comes with having high standards and finding someone who meets and matches those high standards, and you theirs.

 

It is always best, in matters of the heart, as well as matters of friendship, to enter every encounter with a new acquaintance or potential friend or more with eyes and heart wide open, without any anticipation or expectation. That way, we don't create fantasies about the other person which they will almost invariably fail to live up to, and which we may then come to resent them for. Rather, seek to get to know (at least superficially) as many people as possible until you find people that you connect with in a dynamic and mutually beneficial way. Even these relationships may not work out as sometimes, they work in 4 out of 5 areas, but the 5th is a deal breaker for one, the other, or both. Ultimately, given enough experience, you will find people who you will truly understand and who will truly understand you, including people you may connect with on a very deep and emotional level; but only if you work to have a similarly deep and emotional relationship with yourself.

 

As for humor, it really depends largely on the type of things which you find humorous, or do not find humorous. Some people find slapstick (physical) humor such as slipping on a banana hilarious; others who have been prone to an over-abundance of teasing for being clumsy or being bullied may find such to be not only not funny, but painfully disturbing. Others may find scatalogical humor (fart jokes, and the like derived from bodily functions) to be funny, and others may find other forms of humor derived from the misfortune of others to be funny. Nevertheless, if one has been the butt of frequent jokes at one's own expense, or empathizes with those who have, these too may be anything but funny. Still others may find puns and various wordplay to be humorous, whereas others find it tedious or trying, as they prefer their verbal communication to be direct and predictable. There are many reasons (including some I haven't mentioned) which may be the cause of your not appreciating the sense of humor of others, or others not appreciating your sense of humor. Nevertheless, it is likely you encounter those who do, and these individuals can become great friends or more, or simply passing acquaintances with whom you can share a humorous joke, anecdote, or whatever else might make you laugh.

 

As to intimacy, I believe it is sharing life experiences with others in an emotionally and intellectually honest, open way. It means being completely genuine and present in the moment with the person you are with, unreserved, without being inappropriate, undemanding, and completely available to someone who is the equally undemanding and emotionally and intellectually open and honest about themselves and what they think and how they feel about you. Others may have a different perspective on intimacy which may be equally valid.  

[Mole]

Wow! What a great post! Thank you so much. Being a young guy this will definitely help me out. I can respect that you have had some experience in your years. You have pretty much answered my worries. I can see this topic from a much clearer and grounded perspective now. Yes, we can learn to understand each other. Love grows over time, and also can understanding. I mean even at a superficial level you won't come to understand things about a person unless they tell you such as occupation, etc. But what you come to understand are things that you can really appreciate and which are real. I would also like to say that I think many people, especially young, follow cultural practices rather than philosophy. So that can be a barrier to communication which would need to be studied to be understood. I heard Stef say on a show that in Japan yellow umbrella people follow others in order to shame them. I doubt something like this would occur in a philosophically mature society. So, it's not like we can understand people straight away but it's not inevitable that we won't or will never understand them. In life things are progressive. Everything takes labour and labour takes time. I think if I want to understand others around me I should be more patient, go step by step and have starting places and as I get older I will have a solid foundation for my relationships. Again, thank you so much. I wish I could upvote this but I'm not exactly sure how.