The Relationship between Culture and the Individual

Introduction:
Culture is the entire way of life of a group of people. The taught set of values, beliefs, behaviors,
practices, and knowledge that people of a society share is called its culture. It influences how people
interact, see the world, and determine what is normal or abnormal, right or wrong. From language and
customs to feelings and identity, culture is inherited and passed down through the generations.
An individual is a unique human being with unique ideas, emotions, experiences, and decisions. People
are different, yet they are also influenced by the culture they are raised in. Instead of existing outside of
culture, the individual learns, imitates, challenges, and occasionally even alters it. In anthropology, the
individual is seen as both a product of culture and a participant in shaping it.
Culture and the individual are deeply interconnected. Culture shapes how we think, act, and feel while
individuals, in turn, influence and reshape culture over time.

Understating Culture:
Culture is not just traditions, food, or clothing. It’s the shared system of values, beliefs, behaviors, and
symbols that people learn from their society. It influences everything from how we show respect to how
we express love or anger. Culture is what gives structure to our lives and makes human society possible.
But culture is not static. It changes over time, and individuals play a role in shaping it. While people are
born into a culture, they also learn, adapt, and sometimes resist it. This push and pull between culture and
individual experience is what makes the relationship so complex and interesting.

Sigmund Freud: Civilization vs. Human Nature :

Sigmund Freud believed that there is often a conflict between our basic human desires and the
expectations of society. In Civilization and Its Discontents, he argued that civilization is built by forcing
people to control their instincts—especially aggressive and sexual ones. These instincts are natural and
part of being human, but culture teaches us to suppress them in order to live peacefully with others.
Freud explained that civilization helps reduce human suffering by creating order and safety. However, this
order comes with a price. By forcing us to behave in “acceptable” ways, culture also makes us feel
frustrated, guilty, and unhappy. Freud’s view was that many of our psychological struggles come from
trying to balance our inner desires with external cultural rules.

1
For example, someone might feel angry but not express it openly because they were taught that "good
people don’t get angry." This suppression can lead to anxiety or depression. Thus, culture protects
us—but it also pressures us. Freud didn’t believe that this conflict could ever be fully solved. He thought
that suffering is part of the human condition, and civilization, while necessary, increases that suffering in
some ways. However, he also explained that people often find ways to cope. For example:
●​ Human inclinations are channeled (or sublimated) into practices that are socially acceptable, such
as literature, painting, hard labor, or lending a helping hand to others.
●​ Freud believed that religion provided moral standards and explanations, which was one way
cultures dealt with dread and guilt.
●​ Although partnerships and love provided brief personal refuges, they were nevertheless
influenced by conventional norms.

Margaret Mead: Culture as a Shaper of Personality and Experience :

Margaret Mead was one of the first anthropologists to explore how culture shapes the emotional and
psychological development of individuals, especially during adolescence. Her most famous work, Coming
of Age in Samoa (1928), was based on fieldwork she conducted in the Samoan islands, where she studied
the lives of teenage girls. Mead’s research challenged the Western assumption that adolescence is always
a time of stress, rebellion, and confusion. In American and European societies, teenagers often face
pressure related to identity, body changes, relationships, and independence. But Mead found that Samoan
adolescents did not go through the same emotional turmoil. Instead, their transition from childhood to
adulthood was smooth, relaxed, and socially supported. According to Mead,
“Adolescence is not necessarily a time of stress and rebellion.” (Mead, 1928/2017, p. 82)
Mead determined that personal behavior and experiences are not predetermined by biology or universal
across all societies. In other words, issues such as adolescent anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, or "identity
crises" are not inherent phases of life, but are significantly shaped by the culture in which one is raised.
This was a revolutionary idea. At the time, many people believed that psychological development was the
same everywhere. But Mead showed that culture plays a huge role in shaping how individuals think, feel,
and behave. If young Samoan girls could grow up without emotional conflict, then the problems seen in
Western teenagers weren’t caused by age or hormones—they were caused by cultural conditions like strict
rules, emotional repression, and competitive pressure. Mead found out from her work that adolescence is
not always unpleasant; rather, it can be stressful based on societal expectations. People's emotional
experiences, sense of self, and interpersonal connections are greatly influenced by their culture. A
person's personality is formed via socialization and cultural education rather than being innate. Cultural

2
diversity demonstrates how adaptive and flexible human behavior is. Mead supported the idea that
cultures should be observed objectively in order to assist anthropologists appreciate the complexity of
human existence. For Mead:
A person is not an isolated, unchanging entity with inherent "natural" [Link], a person is
formed by cultural influences — molded by language, familial roles, societal values, and [Link],
this influence does not imply that individuals are automatons. Culture allows for personal
decision-making, but it also establishes the limits of what is achievable.

Ruth Benedic - Personality Patterns Across Cultures :

Ruth Benedict claimed in her seminal essay The Individual and the Pattern of Culture that a
person's cultural background, rather than nature alone, shapes them. According to her, culture
offers a pattern—a recurring and identifiable method of doing things—that shapes people's
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. These behaviors are inherited and become the "normal" way
of life for people who belong to the culture.

Culture as a Design for Living :

Benedict described culture as a kind of blueprint or design for life. This design includes:
●​ What to value (e.g., bravery, kindness, obedience)
●​ How to express emotions (e.g., is crying a weakness or strength?)
●​ How to relate to others (e.g., should people be independent or cooperative?)
Just like a patterned fabric has a design that repeats, cultures have values and behaviors that are
repeated and expected. Individuals learn this pattern as they grow up. They internalize it through
family, education, stories, and everyday experiences. Over time, these values feel “natural” to
them, even though they are cultural.
Cultural Differences: What’s Normal Depends on Where You Are :
One of Benedict’s most important contributions was showing that there is no universal “normal.”
What one culture sees as positive or respectable, another may see as strange or even wrong.
For example:
●​ In a culture that celebrates competition, like many Western societies, people who are bold
and ambitious are admired.

3
 ●​ But in a culture that values harmony and group cooperation, like many Indigenous or
Eastern societies, those same bold individuals might be seen as disruptive or selfish.

Benedict is renowned for his studies and comparisons of various cultures, including
●​ The Kwakiutl, a group from the Pacific Northwest, were known for their frequent and
acceptable displays of aggression and dominance.
●​ The Zuni, who lived in the American Southwest, were peaceful, helpful, and
conflict-averse.
●​ As part of their cultural worldview, the Dobuans (from Melanesia) were frequently
distrustful and antagonistic. She was able to demonstrate through these analogies that
cultural contexts either support or undermine personality traits, which are not entirely
personal.
Benedict said people are like actors, and culture is the script they are handed, so helping to
explain how each person fits into their surroundings. This script instructs people: Behavior
Guidelines What should one be embarrassed of or proud of? What responsibilities belong in
society? The kind of person they ought to aim to be Someone from a warrior culture, for
example, might be expected to be bold and forceful. Born into a spiritual culture, someone could
be expected to be wise, quiet, and thoughtful. Benedict also knew, though, that not everyone fits
the script of their culture exactly. Others reject or reinterpret the script. In an aggressive culture,
for instance, a gentle person may struggle or someone who questions religious authority in a
rigorous spiritual community may feel out of place. Often acting as agents of cultural
transformation, these people question accepted wisdom and drive society in fresh directions.
Individual vs. Culture: A Two-Way Relationship :
Benedict didn't think people were merely passive consumers of culture. Although culture offers a
powerful framework, people can react, change, and even rebel against it. Culture and the
individual are not mutually exclusive. It is interactive.
●​ Culture shapes the individual by teaching them how to live.
●​ But individuals can shape culture, especially when their values or behaviors challenge the
norm.

4
According to Ruth Benedict t our often defined "personality" is not always exactly ours. It
reflects in part the ideal of our society for us to be. Change starts, though, even if society
presents a script; we still have the ability to challenge it.
“The personality, as we know it, is largely a cultural creation .”
(Benedict, 1934/2017, p. 90)

Comparison of Freud, Mead, and Benedict on Culture and the Individual :

Thinker View on individual View on culture Link between Culture

and individual

Sigmund Freud Driven by Restricts and controls Culture demands

unconscious desires instinctual drives to repression of
(especially for maintain social order instincts, leading to
pleasure and guilt and inner
aggression); always conflict
in conflict

Margaret Mead Flexible and shaped Provides the Culture defines how
by experience, environment that people grow, feel, and
especially during influences emotional behave; adolescence
adolescence development varies by culture

Ruth Benedict Learns roles, values, A patterned system Culture "scripts"

and personality traits that shapes behavior individuals;
through enculturation and thought personalities reflect
cultural norms but
can challenge them
Table -01 : comparison of Freud , Mead and Benedict

The interaction between the person and the society is like to a dance. Though people can decide
how to move, culture defines the rhythm. We follow the beat occasionally and other times we
vary it. The values, ideas, and behaviors we grow up with help to define us; but, our actions and
decisions also help to shape those very things. Freud demonstrated for us the inner conflicts
arising from this relationship. Mead reminded us that our development and emotions are shaped
by our surroundings. Benedict explained to us that vice versa, culture shapes various types of
people and otherwise. These intellectuals enable us to see that being human is about being part of
something greater, not only about biology or personal choice; also, they help to make that
"bigger thing" more human, more inclusive, and more ourselves.

5
Referencea :
Benedict, R. (1934). The individual and the pattern of culture. In P. A. Erickson & L. D. Murphy
(Eds.), Readings for a history of anthropological theory (5th ed., pp. 87–92). University of
Toronto Press.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. In P. A. Erickson & L. D. Murphy (Eds.),
Readings for a history of anthropological theory (5th ed., pp. 93–102). University of Toronto
Press.

Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. In P. A. Erickson & L. D. Murphy (Eds.), Readings
for a history of anthropological theory (5th ed., pp. 81–86). University of Toronto Press.