DRAFT

 

THE ANATOMY OF GROUP BEHAVIOR

by

Creig R. Kronstedt, Ph.D.

 

There is much to commend in the actions of groups throughout the course of human history.  From prehistoric times, individuals have banded together for protection, to share in food gathering, and to assist one another in finding shelter.  As we progressed, the sharing of skills and information has no doubt speeded the growth of civilization.  Lessons learned by one individual could be passed on to others in the group so that the trial and error actions of one might save others in the group from committing unnecessary mistakes.  Such information was first passed on by word of mouth, but eventually became a written history.  The accumulated wealth of knowledge of humankind, has given us civilization as we know it today.

 

The advantages and disadvantages of such an arrangement are well-documented by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan  (1651).  He clearly documents that in order to obtain security and sustinance, we have had to give up a measure of our sovereignty to the Commonwealth, the government which he refers to as the leviathan (a reference to the large sea creature that is said to have swallowed Jonah).  Hobbes’ reference was a clear indication, that whatever benefits we gain from organizing ourselves into groups, the downside is that we will undoubtedly be swallowed up by them and lose some, if not all, of our individuality.

 

It has been said that men think and institutions act.  Because we form groups within our society and then ask them to function as though they had the capacity to behave as individuals do, we have come to believe that groups do in fact perform the same functions as individuals.  The reality is that no matter how well we construct groups or teams of individuals, they will never be capable of behaving as though they were individuals with central nervous systems, and real personalities.  Groups are capable of coming to consensus and agreeing on courses of action.  Ideas, however, are generated only by individuals within a group.  Other individuals may react to and suggest modifications to the ideas presented or may suggest other ideas.  The actions of the individuals in the group are to support, challenge, mediate, or suggest compromises to these ideas.

 

The point is that groups are not entities and are therefore incapable of thinking as entities.  People often prefer group decision-making because it is a way of combining the abilities and ideas of a number of people and perhaps because it is democratic.  While the first reason may be true and laudable, democratic decision-making has an aspect to it that is often overlooked.  No one is responsible for a democratically made decision.  When responsibility is defused throughout a group, it quickly becomes virtually non-existent.  While everyone in the group may be slightly ‘tainted’ by association with the group, there is no one person to point the finger at.     

 

Groups must be cohesive and to be cohesive they must repress individual differences of their members and must lift the common characteristics of the group to a position of reverence.  Championing characteristics which are not common to all members, leads to divisiveness between those who have them and those who do not, just as it creates animosity between groups with different characteristics.  As a result, the championing of  the 'culture' of groups is invariably at the expense of individuals both within the group and outside of the group.  For instance, Afro-Americans who begin to drop some of their cultural mannerisms or language are often considered 'Uncle Toms' or 'Oreos' (i.e., Black on the outside and White on the inside).  It is not culturally correct to behave differently from the majority of those in your culture.

 

This championing of differences invariably brings one group or culture into conflict with another.  Even within a culture, adolescents tend to resent and then reject the cultural norms.  Their individualism does not extend very far however, since they quickly form their own 'teen' culture and establish very rigid behavioral norms, customs, and even their own language.   Sadly, we learn very early how to be 'different' by being just like everyone else in our chosen group.

 

While group membership is perceived by some as a builder of self esteem, it actually only satisfies a sense of needing to belong.  For many individuals, a sense of personal worth is generated externally.  These individuals measure their value as a person by how much money they have or how many material things they own, or by who their friends or acquaintances are.  Being a member of a group whether it is a country club or a neighborhood gang, the Republican Party or a gay rights group  bestows the perceived characteristics and qualities of the group upon the member.

 

Membership offers benefits, but it requires sacrifices, too.  To belong, one must take on the accepted behaviors of the group and give up any personal behaviors or opinions not held by the group.  The  'group' or a small inner circle of it defines how a member of the group must behave, and, to a large extent, what the group must think.  There are certain opinions which a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' must not hold.

 

While their values may be different, Republicans, Democrats, Cripps, and Bloods must all toe the 'party line'.  Failure to remain loyal usually results in ostracism from the group.  Of course,  loyalty of members is rewarded in a variety of ways.  First, there is strength in numbers.  It is easier, to hold an opinion if there are others who hold the same opinion.  Second, since the group determines what its 'position' is on each 'issue', it is not necessary for a member to weigh all of the 'pros' and 'cons' of an 'issue'.   One just goes along with the majority.  Finally, there is a sense of comfort that we feel when we are among those who agree with us and are 'like' us.  We feel safe.

 

But the feeling of importance generated by being a member of a group should never be confused with  self esteem.  Self esteem, by definition, must be a positive regard for oneself based on personal accomplishments, not the false sense of pride one gets by associating oneself with a group (some of whose members may have accomplished something).  This is best typified perhaps, by the supporters of athletic teams, who after the team wins a victory, persist in shouting at the top of their lungs, "We're Number One!  We're Number One!"  These supporters of course did nothing to win the game and they have no right to take credit for or pride in the skills and performance of the team.  Nevertheless, this is typical group behavior.  While some may argue that this 'team spirit" is harmless, we need only remind them that such 'team spirit' at european soccer games has resulted in the deaths of spectators.

 

Most members of groups find nothing negative or threatening about their own groups.  It is only the characteristics of other groups which are challenged and with which members of another group take offense.  Members of other groups are easily labeled weirdos, fanatics, and freaks.  They may even be treated in discriminatory and unjust ways, because , after all, they are not like us.

 

It is the nature of groups is to create 'insiders' and 'outsiders'.  The whole point of identifying oneself with a group is to be able to distinguish oneself from other 'non-group' people.  One gains 'status' by being 'in' and by default loses 'status' by being out.  Unlike Groucho Marx, who said he would refuse to belong to any club which would have someone like him as a member, most of us take pride in being asked to be a part of a group.

 

Such practices create a 'we' and 'they' mentality which perpetuates  the stereotyping of human beings.  Suddenly 'we' assume superiority and 'they' become inferior.  In the past, the widespread belief of lighter skinned people that darker skinned people were inferior, set the stage for 'legitimizing' taking their land, enslaving them, and generally subjecting them to treatment which would never have been permitted had they been 'light skinned'.  The irrational conviction that dark skinned people bore the 'Mark of Cain' or that they were 'more animal than human' made such treatment acceptable to the majority culture.  Yet today, the attribution of certain characteristics upon whole groups of people is accepted almost as a matter of course by some of the same people who suffered most because of previous sexist or racist discrimination.

 

This is seen most recently, among women's groups who supported Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings for nomination to the position of Supreme Court Justice.  Rather than explain why rational people should believe Ms. Hill's accusations more than Mr. Thomas' denials, some women simply  said, "Men, don't get it."  It was assumed that because only  women could know what the ‘female experience’  was, only women could understand.  The implication, while subtle, is that women are morally and intellectually superior simply because genetically they carry the female chromosome. They thus belonged to the group identified as 'women', and they, the “insiders” "Got it," while being a male 'outsider'  made "Getting It" impossible.  This same group of women would be incensed if anyone were to suggest that having that same female chromosome, made it impossible for them to 'Get' something else like an understanding of mathematics or the intricacies of business.  Clearly, all such sexually related 'traits' are totally bogus, but they do give some individuals a false sense of superiority or pride simply because they are members of ‘the group’.

 

The same type of message is sent by Black individuals wearing T-shirts that say, "It's a 'Black Thing', you wouldn't understand."  Such messages do not build self esteem.  They are simply poor attempts to feel superior because presumably being a member of that group gives one a secret knowledge that outsiders do not possess.  Men's and women's clubs, lodges, and sororities and fraternities use similar secret rituals, symbols, and handshakes to create the impression that those who know are somehow superior to those who don't.  It is this same sense of moral superiority which allowed ‘white males’ to perpetrate the injustices upon those who did not belong to their group.

 

 While such behavior from women and minorities may be reactions to the feeling of  being excluded from the dominant 'white male' culture for so long, they clearly demonstrate the danger of submerging individuality into any group culture.  Having been repressed as a 'group' does not 'automatically' give that group the moral high ground.  In actual fact, it is more likely to make that group behave in more repressive ways, in the same way that abused children often grow up to be abusers themselves, i.e., "We become what we hate!"  

 

To be perceived as being of value, membership in a group must give a sense of worth to the members and, the group must be seen as 'different from' and 'better than' other groups.   If two groups are the same in every respect, then they are really just one large group since it is impossible to tell them apart.  However, given that they are different, then one must be viewed as having higher or lower status or having characteristics which are viewed as better or worse than those of the other group.   Clearly, if one had a choice, one would  join the group which one perceived as better.  Failing that, one would probably join the lesser group and then convince oneself that it was actually the better group.  Minority groups, feeling a sense of inferiority simply because they are smaller in number,  tend to stress pride in group membership more than majority groups. This does not reflect on the value of the group, but rather on its need for survival.  Large groups can survive if members leave, but small groups may not.

 

The need for group pride is most readily apparent in gang behavior where groups may not actually perceive any real differences between themselves  and thus seek to differentiate themselves by wearing 'colors' so that they can tell one group from another.  They also develop elaborate rituals and customs to further distinguish themselves.  They engage in gang wars or other acts of pseudo heroism to bring glory to their gang and make it seem better and ,thus,  more valuable to be a member.  One of the more disgusting rituals of present day gangs that has recently come to light, is that female members of one gang were required to have sex with a male member known to have AIDS.  Such behavior demonstrates loyalty and that one has 'guts'  or 'juice'.  Male members, to show loyalty and to get 'juice' are sometimes required to kill someone designated by the gang.

 

While gang behavior may seem a far cry from that of supporters of athletic teams,or political parties, or country clubs; the reason for their existence is essentially the same. Lack of self esteem, our need to belong, our feeling of well-being and comfort when we are surrounded by others like ourselves, and the sense of power we get from not being alone is likely to keep human beings in groups for the foreseeable future.  However, we must never forget the detrimental effects of being absorbed by the group mentality, of submitting to 'group think', of developing a false sense of importance from belonging to the group, and of viewing those who are not members as somehow inferior or bad.

 

Throughout history and all over our planet, all cultures or groups or tribes of people have imposed arbitrary sets of values on those who lived within their realms of power.  People have banded together from the beginning of time for mutual protection and to increase their power.  Over time they have turned their battles and barbarian conquests into legends, stories of heroism, and an honored heritage.  They establish levels of decorum and impose them on all within their power.  They unashamedly steal the accomplishments of any individuals that they can manage to claim as their own and they refer to these thefts as elements of their culture.  At the same time, they show little or no compassion or tolerance of any individuals within or outside of their 'culture' who are in any way different from the 'norm'.

 

Even more unfair, perhaps, is the acquisition or expropriation of the accomplishments of individuals by their 'cultural' peers.  While the individuals' life experiences and environment clearly have an influence on their work, the art, music, or literature produced is the product of those individual minds.  It belongs to the person and not to some arbitrary group or culture that chooses to expropriate these personal treasures or the skills of the individuals as their cultural heritage.

 

The efforts of the Russian or Chinese Communists to attempt to define for their societies what is and what is not art and culture is ludicrous.  Cultures do not define art, artists do.  Such cultural demagogues even attempt  to force artists to create only works which bestow greater glory on their cultures.  The sterility of such politically correct 'art' only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of such practices.  Artists who are not allowed to create from their own individual experiences produce trash not worthy of the name of art.  Like most demagogues, Adolph Hitler argued that only German art, music, and literature was of any value.  Only German culture was worth preserving and he too attempted to define what that culture should be, but he didn't even believe his own pronouncements.  Though he condemned the work of French painters as decadent, he stole them from French galleries as his troops retreated back into Germany toward the end of World War II.

 

Yet even by calling these individuals French painters, we fall into the trap of putting them into a culture which they themselves might very well have rejected.  Most of the so-called French Impressionists were rejected by their own society.  When they attempted to exhibit their work in the prestigious Ecole' des Beaux Arts in Paris, their work was refused.  Some of them later held an exhibit of their own called the 'Salon des Refuses'.  Their work was too avant garde for the narrow minds of the French culture of the period.  The same thing happened to Rodin whose work was continually rejected because he chose to sculpt nude figures which his fellow Frenchmen considered obscene.  What is truly obscene is that French culture now claims these individuals as their own.  Paul Gauguin, born in France, rejected his whole culture and chose to move to the South Sea Islands and painted scenes of Polynesians.  Do the 'French' have any inherent 'cultural' right to claim these artists as their own?

 

Those geniuses who contribute most to our society are often eccentric iconoclasts who do not fit easily into the 'cultures' into which they are born.  They are often 'misunderstood' at best; and, at worst, they are  treated abusively by those cultures.  What is common to all cultures is that over time they cautiously expropriate the work and ideas of those of genius who have lived among them.  They do this, of course, only after it is safe and prudent to do so.  If a large enough majority of the group finds them safe and acceptable, they become the property of that culture and everyone in that culture  owns them and suddenly gains in status for being a member of such a 'talented' culture.  Of course new ideas or concepts do not become the conventional wisdom of a culture until the culture has had twenty or so years to get used to them.

 

It is interesting to note, that many of the geniuses now embraced by various cultures were homosexuals and were ostracized for these differences as well as those that made them unique and talented.  Some examples are Socrates, Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and Tennessee Williams. 

 

The sexual preferences of these revered individuals are usually ignored, yet at the same time, members of cultural groups who are homosexual are usually maligned and subjected to discriminatory practices in almost every culture, dominant and non-dominant.  Homophobia is a clear indication of the fears that individuals who do not follow the cultural norms will ultimately destroy the values of the culture in which they live.  Even repressed minorities have strong cultural strictures against sexual practices that are not 'normal'.

 

The celebration of multicultural diversity tends to disregard the fact that individuals are what make cultures diverse and that a culture does not exist by itself as an entity without unique human beings.  Culture is an arbitrary basis for grouping individuals.  Grouping individuals by the color of their skin, or by their sex, or by the geographic location in which they were born, or by any other accidental characteristic of nature is absurd.  It makes as much sense to define cultures by height, eye color, or shoe size as it does to define them by which side of a mountain or lake one is born on or what language one learns to speak, or the shade of ones skin.

 

The sacrifice of the individual  for the greater good of the whole group may follow the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, but it neglects the fact that virtually all of the social and scientific advances that have lifted the human race out of the savagery of the dark ages, were the result of the skills and abilities of individuals who worked together and shared ideas while maintaining their individuality.  The only clear category we can put people into is as members of the species homo sapiens. While it is essential that we welcome with equal acceptance the differences of all whom we meet and that we work as teams to integrate that knowledge and skill for the betterment of all humanity, we must carefully guard against losing the self in the group culture.  The value of the individual human being must never be sacrificed for the supposed 'greater' good of society. 

 

Such repression of the self is fascism, and the fascistic attention given without thought to one's own culture  fosters racism and nationalism.  We must never forget that the atrocities of Nazism were justified by the principles of racial purity and racial superiority, and because the Germans after World War I were punished and repressed by the rest of the Western European.  We are seeing the re-emergence of this kind of attitude once again in what used to be Yugoslavia with the devastating war between Serbians,Croatians,and Moslems as well as between ethnic groups in the crumbling Soviet Union, and in the perpetual warring of Arabs and Jews in the Middle East.  True Diversity can only be achieved by a recognition of the contributions of all individuals regardless of background.  Any other efforts at championing one's own culture at the expense of other cultures is not Multiculturalism, but rather a thinly veiled, New Racism.

 

 

 

Multicultural Diversity has become one of the new buzz‑words of academia and of corporate America.  It is viewed by some as the new tool for guaranteeing equality and eliminating prejudice from the world.  But what exactly does Multicultural Diversity mean?  In simple terms, of course, it means that as a modern world society we must be sensitive to the reality that there are many cultures and ethnic experiences in the world and we must broaden our perspectives to embrace them all.  That would seem to be a rational and desirable goal.  However, some proponents of multicultural diversity argue that the need for such a movement stems from the presence of a dominant Western European (Male) oriented culture which has existed for centuries and which is repressive and insensitive to the minority cultures of the rest of the world.  They argue that this historically dominant culture must yield its dominance and adapt to the diversity of the many different cultural views of the world.  While at first blush the argument seems laudable and plausible, further reflection suggests that the implication of a dominant Western European Male culture as villain is stereotypic and one-sided.

 

Is there truly a monolithic Western European culture? It would be  hard to get agreement from the Europeans.  Scandinavian culture does not closely resemble, French, or Russian, or German, or English, or Spanish, or Greek, or Italian culture and to be accurate there is not a Scandinavian culture, but rather Swedish, Finnish, Danish, and Norwegian cultures which are quite different from one another. This is not even to mention the Austrian, Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Slavic, Bulgarian, and all the other tiny but distinct east european countries which have recently gained their freedom with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Within each country, there are further subcultures and regions with different cultural mores.

It is most assuredly true that Western European Culture or, more precisely, various ethnic western european cultures have been repressive at various times.  Western european culture is not monolithic.  Throughout european history  a variety of ethnic groups have taken their turn at  repressing, raping, pillaging, and murdering those of other weaker cultures.  From the time that the east Asian Huns under Atilla conquered much of present day Europe, to Alexander the Greek's  conquering of North Africa and the Mediterranean, to Rome's conquest of northern Europe, to the Vandals conquest of Rome, and the Norse conquest of England; cultures have destroyed, repressed,  and, finally, assimilated other cultures.  These conquests were usually at the behest of one or another of their personal gods, but their ulitmate pupose was to perpetuate their own cultural values.   When one culture makes war on another each invariably claims that their cause has been validated by God.

 

Wars are fought to perpetuate cultural values.  War, by definition, is a physical conflict between cultures.  Whether the conflict is over land, or trade routes, or control of the seaways, or the method of governance; it is nevertheless a clash of the perceived needs and values of several cultures.  The same kinds of cultural clashes have occurred throughout human history and they have  happened in Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, and South America.

 

Contrary to historical revisionists, not all of the repression of Third World cultures and countries has come from western european colonizers.  Indigenous tribes and peoples have invariably fought with one another for the same lands or hunting grounds. They fought to ensure the survival of their own culture at the expense of other cultures.  The myth of the noble savage at peace with nature is patently untrue.  Tribal groups continually warred with one another and made slaves of captured individuals.  The myth, of course, was easily perpetuated by those who won the wars, since those who lost were usually not around or were not in a position to challenge it.  The stupidity of war is that it is waged by groups of individuals who have been convinced that their imagined cultural differences are more important than their similarities as human beings.  Sadly, those against whom war is waged must band together to oppose the aggressor, and, if they win, they usually come to view their 'culture' as superior to that of the losers.  There is an inherent tendency to become what we hate (presumably because we focus our attention so strongly upon it).

 

Upon careful, unbiased review of historical fact, one is inclined to ask whether the premise of a dominant repressive Western European Male culture is true, or if a much more generic question about the inherently repressive nature of all cultures is the more relevant question.  If the answer to that more generic question is yes, then the concept of Multicultural Diversity may only be creating more of the stuff it is trying to get rid of.

 

As a dominant culture grows in power and assimilates other cultures it necessarily becomes less cohesive and more diverse.  The result is that it tends to become less repressive because it is more difficult to define 'normal' cultural behavior.  Each time a dominant culture assimilates a weaker one, it becomes less homogeneous and begins to adopt some of the customs, knowledge, and behaviors of the weaker culture.  The survival of Christianity and its perpetuation by the Romans is testimony to this fact.   Initially, minority groups within the dominant culture are segregated physically and culturally and often are forced to live together in ghettos under less than ideal conditions.  However, most groups recognize the power of banding together to help and protect one another and often choose to live in cultural enclaves even though it may not be demanded by the dominant culture.  These subcultures define themselves based upon a commonality of language, ethnicity, or geographic location, and,  more recently, by sexual preference, or even by physical disabilities.  Their children, however, usually find it easier and more comfortable to become assimilated into the larger culture.

 

Nowhere is this better demonstrated on a large scale than in the civil rights movement and 'youth culture' or 'flower children' of the sixties.  The coming together of the young people of different cultures did much to lessen the repression of the dominant culture because the members of this new 'hippie minority' group were actually the children of the dominant culture.  Protest and dissent has become more commonly accepted.  Interestingly, the same tactics used by the dissenters of the 'sixties' have been adopted by the very conservative religious right who are a part of the pro-life movement.  Cultural mores tend to be assimilated even by groups which seem to have the least connection to them.  With the passage of time  of the  'flower child' culture, those same individuals (the Baby Boomers) have become the dominant conservative culture.

It is as a direct result of the more accepting attitudes of the  dominant group that some of the minority groups have felt the strength to band together and speak out.  While physical repression of minorities is much decreased, economic repression remains strong and those who resort to illegal acts to balance the economic equation are still harshly punished.  Nevertheless, opportunities have grown so that many more minority individuals graduate from college and and take higher positions in society.  A few have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of their forebears.   Many will be quick to point out that from their perspective, nothing has changed, but that argument can be refuted if we look at the historical record.  Nevertheless, with the increased sensitivity and awareness of  minorities comes a stronger (and justified) hunger for total equality.  The increased awareness of minorities has also led to an increased awareness of cultural heritage. It is as a result of awareness and cultural strength that the Multicultural Diversity Movement was born in the United States.

 

Historically, minority cultures in the United States have been absorbed into the 'melting pot'.  Western European cultures were the first to assimilate and over generations have adopted the 'American' culture and an 'Americanized' English language.  Prior to assimilation, prejudice and ostracism has been the lot of each new ethnic group.  The Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Swedes, the Poles, etc.; each faced repression and exclusion.  Then their ethnic group became 'Americanized'.  Ironically, these new 'Americans' often exhibit the strongest degree of prejudice against the newcomers that follow them.  Nevertheless, as the assimilation progresses from generation to generation, each group has shown a concern about the loss of its ethnic heritage. 

 

Most recently, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans have voiced these same concerns about loss of cultural values.  The Multicultural Diversity movement has emerged as a solution to the problem.  Many people have embraced the movement without taking the time to carefully consider just what it is that they are embracing.  Certainly there is value for us as human beings to embrace the wealth of diversity of expression which exists in the human family.  But how much of what we celebrate as culture belongs to a group and how much of it is the intellectual and spiritual property of individuals who happen to have grown up in that group?  Undoubtedly, the circumstances under which one learns and grows will affect ones attitudes, but in the world of today, few of us are so isolated that we are not influenced by a wide variety of cultures and experiences.  Openness to all things new and different seems far more important than immersing oneself in what one perceives as his or her 'own' culture especially if it is to the exclusion of any other culture.  That is not MultiCultural Diversity.  That is the non-diversity of a mono-culture!

 

Before deciding what ones culture is, some basic issues must be addressed. Perhaps the most important question to be addressed, is, "What is culture?"  We must remember that culture is a rather poorly defined term. How many people does it take to form a culture? How long must the culture exist in order to be considered a legitimate culture?  Can any group declare itself a culture if it chooses?  What are the essential characteristics that a person must have to be a member of a culture?  Must one be born into a culture, or does one become a member by living within the cultural domain for most of ones life?  Operationally defining culture requires that we break it down into categories like religious beliefs, political beliefs, social behaviors, historical experience, musical interests, artistic preferences, literature, attitudes about family, morals, ethics, etc.  The cultural experience of any individual is probably more sharply defined by his or her genetic makeup, upbringing, geographic location, education, and personal interactions.  The wider that experience is, the less likely it is that we will be able to fit that person into a cultural frame.

 

Next, assuming that we can generate a clear definition of culture, "What cultures are we talking about?"  Is there truly a 'Black' culture, or a 'Hispanic' culture, or a 'Native American', or a 'White European Male' culture? We have already discussed the difficulty of defining European culture.  What about Native American culture?  Which tribe best represents Native American culture?  Is it the culture of the Iroquois, the Chippewa, the Hopi, the Arapaho, the Apache, the Comanche, the Cherokee, or one of the many other tribes? Is the Afro‑American culture that of Atlanta, Georgia; or Chicago, Illinois; or Los Angeles, California; or Tuskaloosa, Alabama? What color is a member of Black culture?  Should light-skinned blacks be excluded from Black culture since they are clearly more White than Black? Do we need to include Jamaicans and Haitians?  They are certainly Afro‑Americans, but their language and experience is clearly uniquely different.  Do Hispanics have a common culture or only a common language?  Is the Hispanic culture of Puerto Ricans the same as that of Mexican Americans? Is the Hispanic culture of the California 'barrios' the same as that of New York City's 'Spanish Harlem'?  These questions are not just rhetorical.  If we are truly going to be receptive to many cultures, we must take care not to throw distinctly different groups together and stereotype them and the individuals perceived to belong to them.  It is just as bigoted to believe that a member of a group is naturally a good athlete,  or a good dancer, or that they make good accountants as it is to believe that they are naturally lazy or stupid.  Gross generalizations are gross generalizations whatever their nature, and they are invariably wrong.

 

Some might argue that humans are divided by race and that different races have different cultures, but that only demonstrates a limited understanding of human history.  Even if there were different races at the beginning of human history (which is doubtful), the intermingling of gene pools as one culture met and conquered or was conquered by another, has undoubtedly destroyed all chances of racial purity [and the Nazi holocaust should have ended for all time any belief that there is value in it].

 

We must never forget that Nazism perpetuated the myth that they were the descendants of the Aryan race which was the cradle of civilization.  They declared themselves to be repressed by the Jews and other non - Aryans.  Hitler argued that only by throwing off the  enslaving yoke of their repressors could they ever achieve their destiny.  Anyone who challenged this Nazi philosophy was invalidated as a Jew lover and betrayer of the Fatherland. 

 

We tend to think of Nazi repression as the imposition of a dominant culture upon minority cultures, but that is not the case.  Hitler and his cronies were a very small minority within Germany and lost most of their early political campaigns.  Only by playing upon the hardships faced by the Germans as a result of the reparations of World War I, and blaming the terrible economic conditions upon the 'money grubbing' Jews were they able to convince larger and larger numbers of Germans to buy into the concepts of ethic pride and racial purity.  The Nazis, to hear them tell it, were only victims who were finally  and justly striking out at their oppressors.  And to them anyone who was non-Aryan was an oppressor.  Fair treatment and justice did not apply to non-aryans, because. after all, they were not really humans, but rather members of a sub-human species.

 

Each time one human mates with another, a genetic combination occurs which has never before occurred on the face of the earth.  To assume that as humans moved over the earth, that these genes have not been mixed in unending combinations is naive in the extreme.  If certain humans do seem to have similar characteristics it is probably more a function of having lived in a certain environment, having eaten certain types of foods, and over long periods of time,  having interbred in a relatively small gene pool.  Nevertheless, it is extremely probable that except for a few unique cases like isolated island cultures, that all individuals from the different ethnic groups carry many of the same genetic structures as those from the other ethnic groups.  And that, as any geneticist will tell us, has been largely responsible for the survival and successful adaptation of our species. 

 

Ethnic groupings, like any other form of arbitrary cultural grouping, are based upon shared characteristics, behaviors, language, or customs.  Invariably, acceptable cultural norms are derived from the least common denominator of behaviors and ideas in that culture.  These beliefs, especially in small groups, are usually extremely repressive, stereotypic, and racist. Such groups are the least accepting of individual differences within the group, because those different beliefs threaten the belief system of the dominant members of the culture.  The point to be made here is that all cultures have a vested interest in protecting the set of narrow beliefs that they hold in common because that is all that allows the culture to exist.

 

It is understandable that minority group cultures would continue to challenge the dominant culture.  There are clearly injustices in our society which need to be corrected.  Nevertheless, no matter how far a culture advances, there will always be some who have more advantages and some who have fewer.  We are not all born with equal abilities and while we should ensure that everyone has equal opportunities, we cannot ensure that everyone will succeed and find happiness. 

Aside from the need to challenge the injustices which do exist in a majority culture, minority cultures do have a need to define and celebrate their cultural values.  Smaller cultural groups must rigidly enforce their value systems since the defection of only a few individuals to the majority culture may lead to the depletion and demise of the  minority culture. Therefore the smaller and younger a culture is the more likely it is to be repressive.  The presence of minority ghettos stems only partly from the fact that a dominant culture forced minorities to live together.  Part of the formation of ghettos is the desire of those who perceive themselves to be alike to congregate and live among others with similar lifestyles. 

 

While cultures are monolithic, the people within them are not.  Individuals within a culture must mold themselves to fit the ideal cultural model as closely as possible. 'Fitting in' creates a large number of psychological problems for the members of the culture.  For many women in the United States as an example, the ideal woman is slim and beautiful.  To measure up to such an ideal, some women become anoretic (they stop eating) or bulemic (they binge eat and then regurgitate) to stay slim and they often submit to various forms of plastic surgery to become 'beautiful'.  Most individuals do what ever they can to measure up, or develop psychological neuroses or psychoses because of their perceived failure.  Yet, from a statistical or probablistic perspective, individuals included in any culture fall into a bell‑shaped or normal distribution in which only sixty‑eight percent of the individuals are 'normal' (i.e., they fall within plus or minus one standard deviation of the average for the group).  The other thirty‑two percent of the population of any culture is equally divided into groups above and below the norm whose characteristics and behaviors are considerably different from the 'normal' culture.  To disregard the 'culture' or 'subculture' of these minorities within minorities is to subject them to the same lack of consideration of which the Western European Male Culture is accused.

 

The larger the culture, the more diverse it will be because it simply has more individuals and has in all probability assimilated more subcultures.  As the assimilation process continues, there is always a tendency for some of the minority culture values to be adopted by the majority culture.  Since it has a more difficult time limiting what is acceptable cultural behavior, it invariably becomes more tolerant.  This is readily apparent in the United States where tolerance of minority views has obviously increased over time.  Although, some minority groups would argue that the 'white male culture' is as repressive as ever,  the very presence of these groups and the relative freedom with which they voice their opinions, belies such arguments.  Failure to recognize the increase in tolerance is to demean the sacrifices and accomplishments of earlier individuals such as Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr., who suffered harm and death to wrest freedoms from the dominant culture of a few decades ago.  We as a society were more repressive then than we are now and will hopefully be less repressive in twenty years than we are now.  Civilizations and cultures advance very slowly because they have so much baggage to carry with them.