A Cultural Critique To Prepare For This Discussion

A Cultural Critique to Prepare For This Discussion Please Read Chapter

A Cultural Critique To prepare for this discussion, please read Chapters 2 and 3 of your textbook (Feenstra, 2013). In addition, read Culture as Patterns: An Alternative Approach to the Problem of Reification (Adams and Markus, 2001) and Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Finally, review Instructor Guidance and Announcements. In this discussion, you will consider patterns that have shaped your sense of self. Be sure to use your own academic voice and apply in-text citations appropriately throughout your post.

Identify some of the primary cultural influences in your life. (Note that culture can be defined broadly to include a number of dimensions.) Examine your sense of self. Would you characterize yourself as more independent or interdependent? Why? Identify specific examples that illustrate. You might find it helpful to start by considering Figure 1 and Table 1 in Markus and Kitayama (1991).

Appraise the consequences of your self-construction. What are some of the implications of independence/interdependence (for cognition, emotion, motivation, etc.)? Analyze your responses to the Twenty Statements Test in the introduction (Post Your Introduction). Does your description fit with predictions of theory and research findings, as described by Markus and Kitayama (1991)?

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the profound influence of culture on individual identity and psychology is central to appreciating the diversity of human experiences. This essay explores my personal cultural influences, my self-construal, and the implications of these patterns based on scholarly theories, particularly those discussed by Markus and Kitayama (1991). By examining my cultural background and self-perception, I aim to illustrate how cultural frameworks shape cognition, emotion, and motivation, aligning with established research.

Primary Cultural Influences

Growing up in a multicultural environment, I have been influenced by a blend of Eastern and Western cultural paradigms. My family emphasized collective values, community interconnectedness, and respect for elders, reflecting collectivist orientations common in many Asian cultures (Feenstra, 2013). Simultaneously, societal exposure to Western individualism highlighted personal achievement, autonomy, and self-expression. These influences created a complex cultural landscape that shaped my worldview, fostering both interdependent and independent tendencies.

My cultural influences extend beyond family and societal norms. Educational environments emphasized personal initiative and critical thinking, fostering independence. Conversely, familial and community ties reinforced reliance on social harmony and interdependence. These contrasting influences contributed to a nuanced sense of self that fluctuates depending on context, aligning with the notion that culture can be understood as patterns of shared meaning and practice (Adams & Markus, 2001).

Self-Characterization: Independent or Interdependent?

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), individuals typically display tendencies toward independence or interdependence, influenced by cultural contexts. Based on their framework, I find my self-construal to be primarily interdependent, characterized by a focus on social harmony and relational roles. For instance, I tend to prioritize group consensus and collective well-being over personal preferences, especially in family and community settings. An example of this is my decision-making process, which often involves consulting family members and considering their opinions to maintain harmony and cohesion.

However, in academic and professional settings, I exhibit more independent traits, emphasizing personal achievement, self-reliance, and individual responsibility. This duality illustrates the cultural "mosaic" described by Markus and Kitayama, where individuals navigate multiple self-construals depending on context. Consider Figure 1 and Table 1 from Markus and Kitayama (1991), which depict variation in self-construals across cultures, emphasizing that the self is flexible and multifaceted, shaped by cultural expectations.

Implications of Self-Construction

The implications of perceiving oneself as interdependent include motivations rooted in social harmony and maintaining relationships. Cognitively, this promotes attunement to social cues and contextual cues to sustain group cohesion. Emotionally, valuing interdependence may lead to greater empathy, compassion, and sensitivity to others' feelings (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Conversely, this interdependent self constrains individual expression at times, potentially leading to stress or self-criticism when personal desires conflict with group expectations. Motivationally, interdependence fosters cooperative behaviors but may inhibit assertiveness in situations requiring personal boundary-setting.

My response to the Twenty Statements Test reflects this self-pattern. I described myself more in terms of relationships and roles ("a caring daughter," "a supportive friend") than isolated traits, consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) predictions about interdependent self-construals in collectivist contexts. Such findings affirm that cultural patterns influence self-description and emotional experiences, reinforcing the importance of cultural context in shaping identity.

Conclusion

My cultural influences have cultivated a predominantly interdependent self-construal, which impacts my cognition, emotions, and motivations in consistent ways with scholarly theory. Recognizing this cultural grounding enables me to better understand my behaviors and reactions, integrating diverse patterns of self and behavior. As Markus and Kitayama (1991) articulate, the self is not a static entity but a fluid construct shaped by cultural patterns, which in turn influence psychological processes. Embracing this understanding enriches both personal development and cross-cultural engagement, highlighting the profound interplay between culture and self.

References

Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2001). Culture as Patterns: An Alternative Approach to the Problem of Reification. Japanese Journal of Cultural Anthropology, 6, 83-96.

Feenstra, R. C. (2013). Chapter 2 and 3 of your textbook. [Details omitted for brevity]

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Additional references:

• Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage.
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Asslications and Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
• Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Westview Press.
• Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cengage Learning.
• Singelis, T. M. (1994). The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.