Jeffmet3
05-02-2007, 05:09 PM
i wrote this essay as an ending to an ethnographich project. this isn't the whole essay and its raw and unedited, but I was curious what other people felt about the concept of the outer and inner layer that i wrote about.
“Some things change, but others never do.”
A person is essentially born as a blank sheet, with values that are imprinted and develop as time passes and lives progress. The first values imprinted are those of family based on the interactions between the mother and father, and the child. It progresses to the definition of what is right and what is wrong usually coming once again from the nuclear family at a young age. These sets of values establish a base on which all other values will be derived from. In fact, I feel that these core sets of values are imprinted on the young person and cannot be changed. Regardless of where people move to, or what they end up doing with their lives, they will always remain true to their core values as it will impact every decision and belief they have.
My subject, ****** ****** ***** grew up on a large apple orchard in upstate Peru, New York. For the rest of his life, whether he likes it or not, no matter where he goes or what he does or doesn’t do, he will always be ***** ****** ******, apple farmer from Peru, New York. The values and concepts of what is right and wrong, what is accepted and inappropriate and general rules of life that ***** learned growing up on ***** Orchards will always be with him.
This concept might seem to go against the whole idea of the “American Dream,” of people’s ability to work hard and create a better life for themselves and their children, but it’s not. To understand this, you need to separate people’s identities into two different parts. On the outer layer, you have people defined by their external appearance and accomplishments. This is most often done with respect to what society considers to be successful and right & wrong. On the inner layer, is where an individual defines their accomplishments and self-worth. The scale on which things are rated and determined differs for each and every person, being dependent on whatever the individual considers to be more important. It’s the synthesis of these two layers together that forms a person’s identity.
The outer layer of a person is formed by society. As this scale places an emphasis on materialism, not everyone can be successful. Some people must have accomplished more, must be wealthier, more popular, because it’s all in comparison to other people. If everyone was a millionaire, then would being a millionaire be impressive? The answer is no, as for something to be an accomplishment it must be in comparison to something else. For instance being a millionaire is impressive, because it means that you are wealthier than a very large percentage of people. Being popular means that you must be more popular than other people, or otherwise you wouldn’t be popular as it goes against the very definition of the word. Therefore, the outer layer of a person is superficial. It’s nothing tangible and therefore can be changed easily. The whole concept of the “American Dream,” of working hard to make money to provide for your family, this is solely to affect the outer layer of a person’s identity. People are therefore judged and critiqued on their outer layer as a form of Social Darwinism. Those that are “better” are those that have accomplished the most and attained the most wealth and power. This goes back to the Calvinist idea of predestination. Members of this church worked hard to accumulate great wealth, to prove to others that they were predestined by God to go to heaven. This ultimate form of materialism assumed that those who were more successful were more loved by God and thus should be envied and admired by others.
The inner layer of a person is defined by one’s self, and is created at a young age in the home. This inner layer is a set of values for a person and directs their actions. What a person views as right versus wrong, what a person chooses to do versus not to do, good versus bad; these are all internal conflicts decided by one’s inner self. I am arguing that this inner self cannot be changed by individuals. While there might be exceptions that arise under extreme circumstances, people remain true to their core values because it’s who they are. An example relevant to current events is gay marriage. There are people, who will never accept this as a viable form of marriage regardless of what they are told. The concept that marriage is between a man and a woman is ingrained in their inner self, and nothing will ever change that. There doesn’t need to be a reason why, simply that in their minds, gay marriage is wrong. I am in no way condemning people who believe that, as I feel that people shouldn’t be judged based on their core values as these are out of their control. In addition, how can you judge someone based on their values? Since values are intangible, there is no way to quantitatively determine which are “better” than others, just that they’re different.
As the inner and outer layer of a person’s identity come together, the synthesis yields a set of guidelines for a person to live their life. It is the decisions that the person makes after taking these guidelines into affect that defines their true identity. This is where the responsibility falls on the individual and why they must take full responsibility for their actions. Going back to the example above, an individual is free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but if they act on those feelings in a harmful way, that is when they cross the line. The same holds true for all forms of extremism and hatred. While I might not agree with it, people are free to hate others based on their race, gender, sexuality, or anything. Much of the hatred in the world is ingrained in people’s inner self and will never be erased. However, hatred alone doesn’t cause action. People make the decision towards action, and that is wrong.
“Some things change, but others never do.”
A person is essentially born as a blank sheet, with values that are imprinted and develop as time passes and lives progress. The first values imprinted are those of family based on the interactions between the mother and father, and the child. It progresses to the definition of what is right and what is wrong usually coming once again from the nuclear family at a young age. These sets of values establish a base on which all other values will be derived from. In fact, I feel that these core sets of values are imprinted on the young person and cannot be changed. Regardless of where people move to, or what they end up doing with their lives, they will always remain true to their core values as it will impact every decision and belief they have.
My subject, ****** ****** ***** grew up on a large apple orchard in upstate Peru, New York. For the rest of his life, whether he likes it or not, no matter where he goes or what he does or doesn’t do, he will always be ***** ****** ******, apple farmer from Peru, New York. The values and concepts of what is right and wrong, what is accepted and inappropriate and general rules of life that ***** learned growing up on ***** Orchards will always be with him.
This concept might seem to go against the whole idea of the “American Dream,” of people’s ability to work hard and create a better life for themselves and their children, but it’s not. To understand this, you need to separate people’s identities into two different parts. On the outer layer, you have people defined by their external appearance and accomplishments. This is most often done with respect to what society considers to be successful and right & wrong. On the inner layer, is where an individual defines their accomplishments and self-worth. The scale on which things are rated and determined differs for each and every person, being dependent on whatever the individual considers to be more important. It’s the synthesis of these two layers together that forms a person’s identity.
The outer layer of a person is formed by society. As this scale places an emphasis on materialism, not everyone can be successful. Some people must have accomplished more, must be wealthier, more popular, because it’s all in comparison to other people. If everyone was a millionaire, then would being a millionaire be impressive? The answer is no, as for something to be an accomplishment it must be in comparison to something else. For instance being a millionaire is impressive, because it means that you are wealthier than a very large percentage of people. Being popular means that you must be more popular than other people, or otherwise you wouldn’t be popular as it goes against the very definition of the word. Therefore, the outer layer of a person is superficial. It’s nothing tangible and therefore can be changed easily. The whole concept of the “American Dream,” of working hard to make money to provide for your family, this is solely to affect the outer layer of a person’s identity. People are therefore judged and critiqued on their outer layer as a form of Social Darwinism. Those that are “better” are those that have accomplished the most and attained the most wealth and power. This goes back to the Calvinist idea of predestination. Members of this church worked hard to accumulate great wealth, to prove to others that they were predestined by God to go to heaven. This ultimate form of materialism assumed that those who were more successful were more loved by God and thus should be envied and admired by others.
The inner layer of a person is defined by one’s self, and is created at a young age in the home. This inner layer is a set of values for a person and directs their actions. What a person views as right versus wrong, what a person chooses to do versus not to do, good versus bad; these are all internal conflicts decided by one’s inner self. I am arguing that this inner self cannot be changed by individuals. While there might be exceptions that arise under extreme circumstances, people remain true to their core values because it’s who they are. An example relevant to current events is gay marriage. There are people, who will never accept this as a viable form of marriage regardless of what they are told. The concept that marriage is between a man and a woman is ingrained in their inner self, and nothing will ever change that. There doesn’t need to be a reason why, simply that in their minds, gay marriage is wrong. I am in no way condemning people who believe that, as I feel that people shouldn’t be judged based on their core values as these are out of their control. In addition, how can you judge someone based on their values? Since values are intangible, there is no way to quantitatively determine which are “better” than others, just that they’re different.
As the inner and outer layer of a person’s identity come together, the synthesis yields a set of guidelines for a person to live their life. It is the decisions that the person makes after taking these guidelines into affect that defines their true identity. This is where the responsibility falls on the individual and why they must take full responsibility for their actions. Going back to the example above, an individual is free to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but if they act on those feelings in a harmful way, that is when they cross the line. The same holds true for all forms of extremism and hatred. While I might not agree with it, people are free to hate others based on their race, gender, sexuality, or anything. Much of the hatred in the world is ingrained in people’s inner self and will never be erased. However, hatred alone doesn’t cause action. People make the decision towards action, and that is wrong.