Defining culture

When talking about multiculturalism, I see it necessary to bring up discussion on definitions and views concering culture as it is so strongly involved in the concept.

Laura Huttunen et al (2005, 26) bring out that when considering culture, it is common that people understand it as something that structures the whole lifestyle of people, not only high culture. Culture is referred to visible things like people's daily practices, food,

drink, dressing, music et cetera but it is also referred to more unvisible things like values and norms, perceptions concerning women, men and family to name but a few. A conclusion from that is that culture is structuring and defining our daily life and the way how we see the world. It is important to note, when we talk about multiculturalism, that we talk both the little daily things and the value questions penetrating the whole world view. This makes it, in its part, difficult as a concept of research and dimension of human life, that should be taken into account in political decisions. (Huttunen et al 2005, 26.)

Devore and Schlesinger (1999, 26) articulate, in their part, culture as the way how different human groups structure their behaviour, what kind of world view and perspectives on the rhythms and patterns of life they have as well as how do they see the essential nature of the human condition. They also note that the members of ethnic groups have a common history which draw them together alongside with the present shared experiences. A common culture, religion, language and similar physical features or some kind of combination of these, are things that ethnic groups usually share⁵ (Devore and Schlesinger 1999, 26 according to Marger 1996). An ethnic group can also serve as a comfort zone⁶ (Devore and Schlesinger 1999 according to Blauner 1992).

When Devore and Schlesinger looked at different definitions for ethnic groups, they found common themes like consciousness of kind, a sense of identity based on a shared social history and sense of being like the others in the group (Devore and Schlesinger 1999, 27).

Huttunen et al bring up a view that sees cultures as unchangeable systems. In those systems people who have socialized to certain culture, behave in a particular way according to that culture. Multicultural society, in this scenario, would appear as separate mosaic of cultures that is likely to be a stage of different collisions, misunderstandings and conflicts. (Huttunen et al 2005, 27.) Also Mika Raunio et al (2011, 32) use the concept mosaic of cultures. They share the view of Huttunen et al and

5 Marger, Martin N. 1996: Social Differentiation and Inequality. Second edition. Mcgraw Hill Book Company.

6 Blauner, Bob 1992: 'Talking past each other: Black and white languages of race'. The American Prospect, vol. 10.

also add another angle to it by explaining that in this kind of thinking culture is seen as an abstraction, set of features and it is unleashed from the social and politico-economic structures. Heini Paavola and Mirja-Tytti Talib (2010, 27) see, as Huttunen et al and Raunio et al, this kind of stereotypical thinking that is related to multiculturalism, problematic. They see that the cultures as pheonomena are in this way considered as if they were unchangeable and bound to a certain time and place.

In addition to this view of culture, Huttunen et al (2005, 28) want to bring up other kind of perceptions of it. They want to discuss these other ways of defining the culture that they see very important when talking about multiculturalism. One thing that they discuss is culture as a process. This view goes along with the view of seeing cultures as changeable as, for instance, Paavola and Talib see them (Paavola and Talib 2010, 27).

Cultures are changing and no culture offers a ready manuscript through which the members, when following it, could live life in its all abundance. Life is more likely as people trying to find solutions to contradictories, continuous interpretation of cultural models, improvisation and sometimes even braking the rules and letting go of them.⁷ (Huttunen et al 2005, 29 according to Rosaldo 1989; Abu-Lughod 1991.) Also Veronika Honkasalo and Anne-Mari Souto (2007, 118) put emphasis on the process nature of culture. They find that cultural processes concerning change can usually be quite slow but the cultural meanings may change even quickly according to the circumstances. As an exmple they bring up that a girl with a Muslim background may veil herself as a way of self-definition even though in the country of origin she would have not used a veil at all and even though the family would not require the use of it.

Raunio et al (2011, 21–22) mention that culture talk in daily life has become a challenge because the concept is used particularly and eagerly as an explanation to the difference when it comes to comments like they use veil because it is important in Islamic culture or they are hardworking because they are Chinese. They find that in the daily talk culture is often mixed with ethnicity, nationality and religion as well as different kinds

7 Rosaldo, Renato 1989: Culture and Truth. The Remarking of Social Analysis. Beacon Press. Boston;

Abu-Lughod, Lila 1991: Writing against culture. In a book Fox, Richard G. (eds): Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the Present. School of American Research Pres. Santa Fe.

of stereotypes. They emphasize that as a scientific concept it is necessary to specify and distinguish it from the daily talk. Even though we all are representatives of our cultures, the culture itself does not make people to do something but instead, people are the ones creating culture by their own choices and actions. That will cause negotiations, quarrels and demarcations inside the communities as people try to figure out what customs are our customs to act and think. The view of Raunio et al share the idea mentioned earlier about cultures not offering a ready manuscript for people to follow.

On the contrary to fundamentalist perception of culture, Huttunen et al (2005, 29) discuss cultures as units that do not have clear lines. There are many individuals, like immigrants and offspring of foreign and Finnish parents who cannot be identified solely members of only one group. A natural thing to all cultures is also to borrow, combine and adapt influences. When it comes to Finnish culture, it is also difficult to find things that would only be Finnish. By this they mean habits and traditions that would have not been influenced in any way by other cultures. Huttunen et al see that maybe combining things in the times of quick changes is particularly typical and then when new groups face each other like an immigrant group settling to a new environment. As people will come to the area of new influences, every individual has to ponder and face new kinds of things as well as often also change thoughts and ways of acting. These processes, however, are different to the members of majority and minority cultures. (Ibid.) Johanna Lasonen et al (2009) remind that it is good to keep in mind that nobody is monocultural:

when a Finn deals with another Finn who comes from another part of Finland and who perhaps makes his/her living and eats his/her bread in a different way than the other one, we can also talk about interculturality.

In addition to fundamental view and process view of culture, Huttunen et al present a view that suggests that multiculturalism goes beyond limits. The idea in this view is that the same shared scene produces common understanding. They find this interesting when thinking about multicultural society. This view kind of promises that we can see and experience same kinds of things if we live in same place and scene. We would also have possibility, at least, to start discussion concerning the meaning of our common

experiences. However, the same scene may look and feel different, for example, for men and women or for highly educated and low educated because differences and similarities between people are not only defined by language, religion or other things like that. Thus, the possibility to get influenced in our lives as a part of that scene and in relation to other people who live under same scene, differs. Also the borders between states complicate the continuousness of scenes. They also control people's lives and their mobility in many concrete ways. (Huttunen et al 2005, 32.)

However, for example, many immigrants keep the connection lively to their country of origin or friends and relatives around the world after settling in a new country. Thus, the borders of the new state do not necessarily define the scene where they are living and hence social and cultural practices are not cut off just like that. Huttunen et al see that Finnish multiculturalism is going beyond limits in many sense as multiculturalism generally is. The limits between cultures are porous and intermittent. That means that individuals can identify themselves to more than one cultural group or they can combine different cultural practices when living their own life. On the other hand, more and more people who live in Finland have many kinds of relations to places, cultures and people outside the borders of Finland. (Huttunen et al 2005, 33–34.)

The problems of multicultural society, in their most exacerbated stage, show up in situations where the human rights are threatened by the demands of having right to cherish own culture. Both in Finland and in many other countries, for example, certain dressing rules and circumcisions have raised lots of discussion on the relation between the cultural traditions and human rights. Very often these discussions concern women and children. These questions and the different statements that have been raised up concerning them, have made it visible that the perceptions of different genders and generations vary. There are differences when it comes to what is important in culture, what is worth preserving and what is changeable. (Ibid., 35)