The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
And surely you mean from overlapping subcultures rather than from different subcultures?
The first question... it does not depend on location. It is everyone who was raised among the fundamental western myths. The most important I know (I may forget some).
-Self exists, you are different than others and object.. the goal is to "grow" yourself.. (narrative: become a person).
-Time/Progress. time si not circular. Vital concept of progress, improvement on the general status of the society (linked vital concepts: western medicine, science myths, knowledge...) I would say enlightenment ideas are also so strongly related to this narrative that I am tented to say that those raised in mega-church in US are a very strong modification in the Western catheogry, they coudl certainly split one day fromally.
-Family. Nuclear family structure, children sacred, old people not powerful nor with status because of the age. Marriage strongly linked with love.. social pressure to prevent marraige as a pure contract.
-Space distribution. Separation of three spaces. Private, publich and semi-public with very complex and strict guidelines (complexity of a build-up narrative on space).
-Sex. Sex is bad, only learning and control make sit good.. sex becomes good as you grow up. Sex, love and marriage are generally linked...social control and discussion on those issues.
-Technology/government...makes the division of insiders/outsiders. Economic system complex with strong thesis and antithesis about its variability, relevance (whole set of ideas an ddiscourses about economic elements.. class, bosses, rich, poor..).
-gift/potlach. Potlach completely removed from the economic realms, implemented on personal relation.
I am probalby forgetting one (or two?).. but I do not recall it....
And of course... then there are the universal myths and features which are transcultural.. and there are a lot of them.. but they make us human.. not western.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
-Feelings are internal. basic anrrative: feelings are the thing that make us human. Feelings arise from our more deep self. Feelings are no classified (as in most cultures with a rich variety of them) but lived.
In other words.. there seems to be some feelings or internal experiences that are universal.. on the other hadn other experiences are clearly not universals. feelings, name for feelings attitute and implementation of them ("feeling" and acting to the others) cahnge with time and place. So each culture nomrally has a different set of feelings.. although some of them are extremelly common. This is the reason for the huge discussions about where do feelings come from... basic brain need (some people say in the genes.. but I do not thnk it makes much sense...given that the brain is there..) or by learning...And of course, there may be some purely non-human (that all animals feel) and other related with the appearance of the word (narrative, culture).. It is and endless discussion.
But there is no discussion regarding that each culture has a basic narrative explaining them which basically fixes a playing field about how to deal with them, what to do and how to do it.
Some cultures classify it and link them with other imporant parts of life. Hindus have a whole structure and classification of feelings.. so when you feel that way you also think that way, sense that way, act that way. For example.. when you are angry I think Hindus consider that you get heavy. Properties, related with internal actions and with external actions. It is a wonderful topic.. if you can google it..Hindus-feelings-classification
Other cultures do not classify them and lack most of the western ones.. for example falling in love exists in 75 % of recorded cultures (it was actually reported and double-checked) and empathy seems to be universal.. but how you deal with them both.. how you act and when you act ..depends ont he culture.
I was pointing out that we have a very complex set of feelings, we give them a lot of relevance.. to the point that we consider that someone who has no feelings is no human. But at the same time we also hate the classification...the most we classify is the possitive and the negative ones.. and that's all.. and still some people oppose it...
Am I clearer.. or I am still awful at explaining my self... geee... afew... come to the rescue...please!!!
The way feelings are managed varies of course in time too within the same cultural tradition. There's a strong school of historical thought (not even postmodern!) that says falling in love, for example, was not part of the European tradition until it emerged as a construct deriving from mediaeval courtly love literature and the troubadours. Certainly the way "falling in love" was constructed evolved, took on new cultural layers of meaning, even if you consider (as I do) that there's probably something basically animal and universal there.
Another example from our European past is the theory of humours, by which the the category of "humours" your body was ruled by, determined the subset of feelings you were mostly subject to (see your Hindu example where it's the feelings that determine the state of the body).
It's perfectly clear!
I'm sure the history of romantic love would make a good topic for a series of diaries. (Did I read recently that it was imported from the Islamic world to some extent? It's not of European origin as far as I recall?)
A history of romantic love would be good. But a long-term project...
I've never understood this, because it's obvious from Greek and Roman literature that they had similar experiences. The only difference was that they were more openly bisexual and sometimes openly paedophiles too. But 'love' - in the sense of an overwhelming feeling attachment - certainly wasn't unknown to them.
The Troubador twist wasn't romantic love, but the sublimation of romantic love into pure narrative with little or no physical contact.
The influence of translations to modern languages and all that...you know :)
Heh. As a matter of fact, I do remember reading an ancient text (most probably Greek) describing love in 'medical' terms, as an illness. I don't remember the author. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Hippocrates (470 - 410 BC) thought of the intense love as "greediness" created in the heart, and the stronger the intensity of love, the more a person becomes anxious and worried. The increased anxiety causes sleeplessness and the blood will "burn" and become dark. The "dark blood" spoils the person's thoughts causing "mental deficiency", which may lead to "insanity or madness." This madness might cause a person in love or love addict to kill himself. Also, the person in love might get together with his loved one and then might die because of excitement and happiness. "You could observe", he said, "that this love addict, when he hears the name of the person he loves, his blood escapes and his color changes." Galen (129 - 210 A.D.) later said about those who are in love: "Concern or worry causes the death of the heart while their "sadness" is considered a "heart disease" in itself. He considered "falling in love" as a state of passionate liking combined with greediness or possessiveness. He stated that "falling in love" is created by the "alnafs", which is the Arabic word for what we now refer to as the psyche. "Alnafs" was thought by Galen to dwell inside the brain, the heart and the liver.
Galen (129 - 210 A.D.) later said about those who are in love: "Concern or worry causes the death of the heart while their "sadness" is considered a "heart disease" in itself. He considered "falling in love" as a state of passionate liking combined with greediness or possessiveness. He stated that "falling in love" is created by the "alnafs", which is the Arabic word for what we now refer to as the psyche. "Alnafs" was thought by Galen to dwell inside the brain, the heart and the liver.
Not the sublimation of romantic love, but the sublimation of sexual desire into chaste obsession (the symbol of the Rose, oh dear me...). It is argued that literary descriptions of romantic love evolved out of this, eventually influencing the consensus on love across society and finally actual behaviour.
But, in itself, the courtly love ethos referred back to previous myths. Like the heart being pierced by the arrow of Eros -- being smitten. To what extent was that narrative suggested by actual experience..?
the fetishisation of virginity being at least as old as Christianity...
But, troubadours or not, I have the impression that marriage remained largely a business transaction until at least the beginning of the last century?
If I wanted to play devil's advocate (hmmm...) I'd suggest that it's actually based more on a middle eastern world view.
That's not quite fair because Rome and Greece had a notoriously patriarchal strand. But there was also a more open strand in certain times and places that has been very influential politically and socially in the West, but remains almost totally absent from the Abrahamic mindset even today.
Maybe not sex itself, but female sexuality. Remember the prescriptions for women having their period. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
All righteous human actions, including sexual relations within the bonds of marriage, are considered to be a form of worship of Allah. There is evidence that the Prophet taught his followers that sexual relations between a husband and wife carried spiritual rewards-because sex sanctioned by law prevented the unlawful satisfaction of carnal desire.
fromThe Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov
So, by comparison to St Paul's rather grudging allowance of marital sex for those not strong enough to do without, a ringing endorsement.
But is it female sexuality per se, or an older, deeper fear of being biologically cheated?
Some goes back two centuries further, to the gnostic schism, and the treatment of Mary Magdalene. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
IN one sentence
Seven myths to rule you and one myth to rule them all.
Soem antrhopologists that culture is the people palying wiht the rules more than the rules...
So it is some kind of feedback...
So, people change it.. how?? Whne??
Puff thi sis the core of anthropology. I think there must be as many school of thougs as anthropologists.
I persoanlly think it is very valid question where we could use the scientific narrative to get an answer.. although it is very difficult.
Having said taht, the fundational myths are very difficult to change.. and normally it means a huge change in the social structure/ social order...
Margaret Mead defended that even those monumental changes start with a very small group of people wanting to change things.....other antrhopologists and sociolists would be more materialistic...
I just repeat what a linked from others :)
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 57 comments
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Oui - Sep 49 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 332 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments