Do cross cultural and unusual events discount the cultures of everyone else?
The question of culture is in itself the crucial question and in establishing whether or not an individual can initiate and sustain his or her own culture, independent of others is a unique and vitally important consideration.
Prior to answering this question I had the pleasure of watching the video on Leo Salazar internet site, it depicts a man who is referred to in the first instance as a ‘Leader’ a dancing in a field at what appears to be some kind of music festival. The narrator of the piece then identifies this man as the ‘lone nut’ and as time goes on the loan nut is joined by one male who begins dancing along side him, this man is labelled the ‘first follower’ and during the course of the film these two men are then joined by more and more people until they have what is classified as a movement, with a number of people now dancing in a similar way to that undertaken by the Leader; The first follower is ultimately given much credit for the what is later regarded as a movement where the leader or the loan nut is just someone who merely happened to be the first.
Discounting the importance of the first in this or any other manner fails to recognise where the origin of a movement, which in time may become an established culture. But at what point does this movement actually become a culture? I would argue that if the individual who initiated this new perspective possesses his own norms, values and beliefs then he had established this culture way before anyone else had considered joining in and in doing so he had the capacity and vision to move beyond accepted boundaries, to take his place among the free thinkers and cultural pioneers that perpetuate the growth and evolution of culture. So in answer to the question, yes, I believe that one person can be the bearer of an entire culture, either because he/she is the first or perhaps very last of their kind.
The Journey man
I have to say I agree with you for individual cultures may not don colourerd garments and have lavish carnivals, they may not have huge institutes or grand associations but is there cultural message less significant?
The struggle for freedom of speech achieved the concept of ‘You are a voice in this world and it will be heard’ but this concept has been tarnished and misused in terms of extremists which I’m sure we all agree we could do without as they achieve no positive aim only apparently creating more hatred and resentment towards their cause. I would like to stay on this subject for a brief moment as there are many sides to extremists propoganda and they must be doing something right to have gained the huge followings they have so far. So what are they doing right? I can only surmise that they took an opportunity to interpret the actions of other extremists, castigating a whole group of people and their cultures from the acts of extremist minorities so sowing the seeds of previous doubt into reality i.e. ‘It could be you next’. This type of action has changed the mindset of civilians especially as the nations leaders have not demonstrated positive steps towards making them feel safe/secure and valued hence the civilians jump on the bandwagon of a group that says ‘They will do something about it’.
It’s here that I comeback to the individual cultures as it is evident that people will join extremist groups who have cultures steeped in violence and hatred against those who ared different, yet surely if an individual has a culture that guides and teaches individualism of thought and growth, teaches the etiquette of harmony and balance of life, surely their culture should be complimented and applauded.
Individual cultures have a voice and should be allowed an equal footing with all.
Thank you for your time