Micro culture?

[Heavenly Assault]

Do you think culture always has to be inherently collective in nature? I know the official definition says yes, but I contend that an individual can be their own culture, a micro culture. Each one of us has our own characters, experiences, expressions and history. We are each a little nation unto ourselves. And I'm not saying it's an either/or affair; just about everybody does have both a collective and an individual identity. The question is how valid is that individual identity? IMO, it is just as valid as any collective identity, just more ephemeral, yet nonetheless meaningful. I sometimes have the thought that if I were to become noteworthy for some reason and were to be described by Wikipedia or something like that, I would adamantly not want to be referred to as "American" because it's not my culture, just where I happened to be physically born and raised. Why can someone not just be regarded as an entity in and of themselves? (I'm also not saying environmental influence and interconnectedness don't exist.)

Do you think individuals can be "micro cultures" and if so, what level of validity do they have?

[EuroStralia]

Do you think individuals can be "micro cultures" and if so, what level of validity do they have?

No, culture is part of a shared identity not an individual one.

[Honghai]

Do you think culture always has to be inherently collective in nature? I know the official definition says yes, but I contend that an individual can be their own culture, a micro culture. Each one of us has our own characters, experiences, expressions and history. We are each a little nation unto ourselves. And I'm not saying it's an either/or affair; just about everybody does have both a collective and an individual identity. The question is how valid is that individual identity? IMO, it is just as valid as any collective identity, just more ephemeral, yet nonetheless meaningful. I sometimes have the thought that if I were to become noteworthy for some reason and were to be described by Wikipedia or something like that, I would adamantly not want to be referred to as "American" because it's not my culture, just where I happened to be physically born and raised. Why can someone not just be regarded as an entity in and of themselves? (I'm also not saying environmental influence and interconnectedness don't exist.)

Do you think individuals can be "micro cultures" and if so, what level of validity do they have?

I am one to agree. I see why not; in a hyperindividualistic and everchanging world, there's no need to hang-onto Tradition or onto olden ways. We are a world unto ourselves with our own mindset and ways-of-thinking.

[Heavenly Assault]

Do you think individuals can be "micro cultures" and if so, what level of validity do they have?

No, culture is part of a shared identity not an individual one.

Why does culture always have to be collective to be regarded as culture, though? You could easily describe a collective's culture as its "character", but individuals also have character. You cannot even have collective culture without a conglomeration of individual characters. And so that begs the question, at what number of people does a "culture" start? My best friend and I are just 2 people, but we certainly have our own distinctive culture that stands apart from everyone else. I stand apart from everyone else, so it's only rational to regard myself as an independent cultural entity.

I am one to agree. I see why not; in a hyperindividualistic and everchanging world, there's no need to hang-onto Tradition or onto olden ways. We are a world unto ourselves with our own mindset and ways-of-thinking.

And I in turn concur with everything you said with the exception of "hyperindividualistic world". We're not remotely "hyperindividualistic"; it's the exact opposite, imo.

[PaleoStralia]

No, culture is part of a shared identity not an individual one.

Why does culture always have to be collective to be regarded as culture, though? You could easily describe a collective's culture as its "character", but individuals also have character. You cannot even have collective culture without a conglomeration of individual characters. And so that begs the question, at what number of people does a "culture" start? My best friend and I are just 2 people, but we certainly have our own distinctive culture that stands apart from everyone else. I stand apart from everyone else, so it's only rational to regard myself as an independent cultural entity.

You're forgetting that personality exists.

[Existential Cats]

I mean, why stop there? Consciousness is fragmented. You can just easily claim that the human being is a multicultural host of different cultures.

Speaking as someone with a background in anthropology, culture is... very difficult to define, and plenty of anthropologists are abandoning the idea altogether. But if you're allowing for culture to be reduced to a single individual, you're throwing out several elements that many would find indispensable to a definition of the term, like kinship, law, language, etc.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Classification is useful because the world is large and it is beyond my ability to learn the unique individuality of every human being there are.

[Heavenly Assault]

Why does culture always have to be collective to be regarded as culture, though? You could easily describe a collective's culture as its "character", but individuals also have character. You cannot even have collective culture without a conglomeration of individual characters. And so that begs the question, at what number of people does a "culture" start? My best friend and I are just 2 people, but we certainly have our own distinctive culture that stands apart from everyone else. I stand apart from everyone else, so it's only rational to regard myself as an independent cultural entity.

You're forgetting that personality exists.

How? And an individual is not merely just personality. I am the collective result of all my ancestors. I am a collection of cells working in unison to produce my being. I am a collection of both genetic and environmental influences, along with my collective memories and experiences. Personality is only one aspect of a person's being.

I mean, why stop there? Consciousness is fragmented. You can just easily claim that the human being is a multicultural host of different cultures.

Speaking as someone with a background in anthropology, culture is... very difficult to define, and plenty of anthropologists are abandoning the idea altogether. But if you're allowing for culture to be reduced to a single individual, you're throwing out several elements that many would find indispensable to a definition of the term, like kinship, law, language, etc.

Yeah, we all have our psychological Shadow and we don't go through life as the same person from start to finish. We are a collection of personas, each recorded in the history of the universe and expressed through the physical world. I also think an individual can embody all of those examples, too. I do have a kinship with myself; I'm also my own antagonist. I do have my own "laws", my personal laws which could not be formed in a vacuum. And language - nobody speaks exactly like me. Even if you and I were to read a same sentence aloud in a same language, there will still be obvious differences between our deliveries.

[EuroStralia]

You're forgetting that personality exists.

How? And an individual is not merely just personality. I am the collective result of all my ancestors. I am a collection of cells working in unison to produce my being. I am a collection of both genetic and environmental influences, along with my collective memories and experiences.

You're claiming that because you act different from your peers you have your own culture.

Personality is only one aspect of a person's being.

And I never said it was.

[Bombadil]

Just use the word personality, that's what it's there for.

[Ventura Bay]

I agree with the above poster, that's just personality. Being a certain way isn't indicative of having your own individual culture.

[Fractalnavel]

Not exactly what OP was talking about, but they may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

[Risottia]

Do you think culture always has to be inherently collective in nature? I know the official definition says yes, but I contend that an individual can be their own culture, a micro culture.

No.
Culture is collective, and with a scope larger than a nuclear family or a clan: a tribe, at the very least. You're thinking of personality and character, which is the product of individual genetics, upbringing, education and personal experience.

[Heavenly Assault]

Not exactly what OP was talking about, but they may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind

Thanks, that is interesting. They don't have it in digital format, but I'm going to dig on it.

In response to all of the other above posts, here is my rebuttal:

•Every individual is a collective. Our bodies are an ecosystem and we are never just "one" person. I say we are micro cultures because there is more to an individual than personality; personality is only 1 aspect of the entire being of a person.
-The gut is a good example of this. Digestive health is proven to influence mood and behavior. The brain and stomach are both connected, but also separate things that influence each other. Personality is therefore the result of a collective effort by the unity of individual parts.
-Expanding on that notion, personality is not a monolith. Let's say you have the urge to eat unhealthily and you do just that, consistently. Your personality and physicality will change. It will influence everything you do and probably even how you look, and by extension, how the world interacts with you.

We could also go in the opposite direction. If you choose to eat healthy and you do, your persona and experiences will change drastically. Regardless, it's not either/or. Most of us (all?) have the capacity for both choices in us and an ensuing struggle between these aspects that influence our decisions. Therefore, we are a sum of different personas, a collective of possibilities that at any moment could diverge into someone new, however subtle that divergence may be. Of course, the environment greatly influences such decisions and the personality and that leads me to my next point:

•Every individual has a collective history, just like collective cultures.

Say for example that you break your leg. That will change your life. In your immobility, you may discover a new hobby that is more sedentary in nature than what you are used to. This will induce neuroplasticity, and again, divergence. Our lives are a collection of both wounds and boons. Each is recorded and reacted to by our bodily ecosystems and each influence the mind. The body and mind are both separate and conjoined, just like human societies. They do not operate in vacuums, but in concert that I assert form individual micro cultures because the overall sum of our personality is in fact an aggregation of many different versions of ourselves.

•Finally, I argue that micro cultures exist and are already evident.

Let us consider someone like Walt Disney. He created a distinctive subculture, with a distinctive aesthetic and certain characteristics. Quite literally, we have the "World of (Walt) Disney". That is the culture of the individual made manifest and brought to the culture of the collective. Walt Disney, both the man and his creations are a micro culture. It's not just "American" culture, it is the aggregate culture of the individual who was influenced by the external world. The same can be said about Akira Toriyama and Dragon Ball. It is unique in aesthetic and design. It is Japanese, but also the expression of an individual interpreted through that particular lens. Art validates the existence of micro culture because art is itself an expression of micro culture. It is then appropriated by the collective, but the expression of the individual remains and stands out in contrast.

Just as collective culture is recognized by the level of a collective's uniqueness, micro culture depends on the strength and expression of an individual's uniqueness. It's just humanity has always actively penalized and discouraged individualism, so the culture of individuals is less noticeable. Yet, we all notice individuals like Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, Walt Disney, Albert Einstein and Akira Toriyama and the cultures they create. Society vilifies individual transgressions when convenient and appropriates accomplishments to bolster the collective ego at will, yet both instances are proof that micro culture is as real as macro culture.

[Diarcesia]

It's called a personality.

[Heavenly Assault]

It's called a personality.

OK....why can't that be regarded as culture?

[Bigpipstan]

It's called a personality.

OK....why can't that be regarded as culture?

Because the word culture is used specificaly to refer to shared traits in a small or large collective. On an individual level, this is called self expression.

[Heavenly Assault]

OK....why can't that be regarded as culture?

Because the word culture is used specificaly to refer to shared traits in a small or large collective. On an individual level, this is called self expression.

Right and in a few posts above this one I gave my rationale for why I think self expression is culture. Society tries to invalidate and diminish the individual by monopolizing the concept of culture, despite culture being a direct product of individual self expression.

[Heavenly Assault]

Any other comments before this thread fades into oblivion?